9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. Therefore, the notice u/s 148 and subsequent proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 317 /LKW/2015, ITA No. 305 /LKW/2015 - - - Dated:- 1-10-2015 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Dr. A.K. Singh, CIT DR. For The Respondent : Shri B.P. Yadav, Cost Accountant ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JM. These cross appeals are preferred by the assessee as well as Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A) pertaining to the AY 2005-06 2009-10. These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of reference we extract the grounds of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the materials facts during the course of assessment proceedings already carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act and the notice issued u/s 148 is barred by limitation. 2. On the under noted facts, the Ld. CIT(A) was not at all justified in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act and passing the assessment order u/s 148/143(3) of the Act. (i) Because the assessee has already been subjected to scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. (ii) Because notice u/s 148 has been issued after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. (iii) Because in the reason to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, there has not been any such finding that there h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and in law in confirming the addition 8,78,96,032/-made by the Ld. A.O. in the hands of the appellant ignoring the facts of the instant case that the expenses incurred by the appellant on tools, minor equipments, scaffolding, erecting etc are fully allowable expenditure. 6. On the undernoted facts, the Ld. CIT(A) was not at all justified in confirming the addition ofRs.8,78,96,032/-:- (i) Because it was the first year when disallowance of shuttering, sheltering and scaffolding expenses was made. (ii) Because the assessee is a wholly owned Government undertaking which is subjected to CAG Audit and there has not been any adverse finding either by the CAG or statutory auditors. (iii) Because in each of the previous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without recording a satisfaction that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee. Ld. counsel for the assessee further invited our attention that the impugned assessment year involved is 2005-06 and the reasons for reopening was recorded on 27.07.2012. Therefore, reopening was done after four years. He has also invited our attention that in the assessment order the issue on which AO reopened the assessment was also examined by the Assessing Officer while allowing the same therefore, the reo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cally held that provision of Section 147 148 of the Act indicate that the Assessing Officer has wide powers to reopen the assessment, if he has reasoned to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Their Lordship further held that wide power is circumscribed and does not give jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to reopen a completed assessment on a mere change of opinion. The reasons to believe cannot be based or be an outcome of the change of opinion. It was also further held that the proviso to section 147 indicates that if more than four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, in addition to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that he has reasons to believe, he must also indicate tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
