9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income for the relevant assessment year under Section 147 of the Act. The jurisdictional fact in such a case will not be how a particular amount or a particular transaction ought to be treated. That is the exercise that is reserved for the reassessment stage. Further, it is evident that a further disclosure had been made in the relevant return by the petitioner by referring to the transaction with Dalal and Shah. Whether or not the assessing officer would be justified in treating the relevant amount paid in the assessment year by the firm to the petitioner as a gift depends on how the additional disclosure ought to be regarded. The additional disclosure could not have been taken into account earlier and the apparent admission on the part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The reasons were furnished under cover of a letter dated September 24, 2014. The petitioner protested the reasons and it is submitted on the petitioner's behalf that the jurisdiction to seek reassessment was questioned in course of the petitioner's written protest of December 20, 2014. In tune with the dictum in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd, the assessing officer has passed an order on August 6, 2015. It is this order that the petitioner assails as being without reasons and on the ground of the failure of the assessing officer to appreciate the jurisdictional error that was pointed out by the petitioning assessee. Section 147 of the said Act permits an assessing officer to assess or reassess the income of an assessee for any previous year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of the assessing officer seeking to treat the relevant amount as a gift and not as a loan. In the impugned order of August 6, 2015, the assessing officer reiterated his view that it was a gift and not a loan. The petitioner says that since the assessing officer has already made up her mind, it may be a futile exercise to go back before such officer in course of any further opportunity that may be given under Section 142 of the Act. The petitioner maintains that since the Supreme Court judgment in GKN Driveshafts provides for a speaking order to be passed by an assessing officer when the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act are challenged, the failure to adequately give reasons in respect of the matters in issue would render ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. The jurisdictional fact in such a case will not be how a particular amount or a particular transaction ought to be treated. That is the exercise that is reserved for the reassessment stage. Further, it is evident that a further disclosure had been made in the relevant return by the petitioner by referring to the transaction with Dalal and Shah. Whether or not the assessing officer would be justified in treating the relevant amount paid in the assessment year by the firm to the petitioner as a gift depends on how the additional disclosure ought to be regarded. The additional disclosure could not have been taken into account earlier and the apparent admission on the part of the petitioner that the transaction pertaining to Dalal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
