9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd added and which made the present proceeding/ reasons different from the earlier reasons. Thus the reassessment proceedings are held to be bad and, we therefore, cancel the initiation of reassessment proceedings - Decided in favour of assessee. - I. T. A No 4489 /Mum/ 2011 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2014 - R. C. SHARMA AND VIVEK VARMA, JJ. For the Appellant : G. P. Mehta For the Respondent : Pavankumar Beera ORDER Vivek Varma (Judicial Member).- The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai, dated March 30, 2011, wherein, the following grounds have been taken : 1. The orders passed by the learned lower authorities are bad in law and bad in facts. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on protective basis is ab initio void, inasmuch as, no protective assessment can be made under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. The impugned assessment order passed by recourse to section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is ab initio void, inasmuch as no case of escapement of income has been made out. 9. The learned lower authorities have grossly erred in holding that write off of a debit balance of ₹ 9,73,64,72 (Rs. 12,73,14,727- ₹ 2,99,50,000) by another assessee and not allowed as deduction in that case, could constitute income/gain of the appellant, even though the appellant continued to show the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prejudice to the factum of initiation of reassessment proceedings again and again, the reasons on which the second notice issued was identical on issue, to the reasons as in the first notice under section 148 ; which are as follows : . . . the original notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on March 28, 2007 after recording following reasons : 'Reasoning for reopening of assessment GK AK Rathi (HUF) assessment year 2002-03 As per intimation received from the Income-tax Officer 8(2)(3) in the case of M/s. Millenium Carribonum Pvt Ltd. for the assessment year 2002-03, the assessee has shown a sum of ₹ 9,73,64,727 payable to Millenium Carribonum Pvt Ltd. and a sum of ₹ 3 crores has been adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ten off ₹ 9,73,64,727 and a sum of ₹ 2,99,50,000 was adjusted against the sum owned by M/s. Killick Carribonum to M/s. GK AK Rathi (HUF). On perusal of return of income especially balance sheet and its annexure it is observed that as on March 31, 2002 the captioned assessee has shown liability of amount payable of ₹ 9,73,64,727 to M/s. Millenium Carribonum Pvt. Ltd. As per intimation of the ITO 8(2)(1) no liability is outstanding towards M/s. Millenium Carribo num. Pvt. Ltd. as the same has been written off by them. Since the liability of ₹ 9,73,64,727 ceases to exist in respect of which the asses see has availed of deduction the said sum ought to have been offered by him for taxation. Similarly an amount of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so submitted that the Legislature has not barred the Department to initiate reassessment more than one time. 7. We have heard the arguments and have perused the orders of the Revenue authorities and the papers appended in the APB. 8. Ground Nos. 1 to 8 pertains to legality of assessment framed under section 143(3) read with notice of reopening under section 148 on March 23, 2009. 9. At the outset, the notice is far outside the period prescribed under section 149, i.e., the notice has to be issued within a period of 4 years or 6 years from the end of the assessment year, therefore, issued on March 23, 2009 is far outside, hence the notice is bad in law. 10. On the second argument, that there must be cogent reasons for reopening, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
