TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be done if some factual error was pointed out by the audit party which had been overlooked by the Assessing Officer but no reopening on the basis of audit objection could be done if the objection pertained to some interpretation of law. The error pointed out by the audit party in the present case was held to be factual. Detailed reasons had been recorded by the CIT(A) justifying reopening on the basis of the audit objection. While concurring with the findings recorded by the CIT(A), it was concluded by the Tribunal reopening on the basis of audit objection is as per law in the given facts and circumstances of the case and the learned CIT(Appeals) has very aptly analyzed the validity of notice under section 148 of the Act and we do not fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that reopening of assessment was made on the basis of audit objections only? C. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula, are not justified in not quashing the action of the Assessing Officer regarding reopening of assessment under the provisions of section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 which was reopened without complying with the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? D. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal and learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant filed a return of income in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee also filed preliminary objections to the reopening of the assessment which were disposed of by the Assessing Officer vide interim order dated 15.1.2014. After rejecting the submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment at an income of Rs. 4,79,66,220/- after making an addition of Rs. 17,55,845/- on account of prior period expenses vide order dated 6.2.2014, Annexure A.1. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 28.11.2014, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Still not satisfied, the assessee filed appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The case of Locus T.V.S.Limited (supra) relied upon by the assessee is not applicable to the present case as in an earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Eastern Newspaper Society (supra), it was held that no reopening can be made on the basis of audit objection which is on some interpretation of law. This judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sant Ram Mangat Ram (supra). In the judgment of P.V.S.Beedies Pvt. Limited (supra), it was held that reopening of the assessment on the basis of error pointed out by the audit party is valid. From the conjoint reading of all these judgments given by the Hon'ble S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na at lower rates and charges at 1% of the purchase. It is submitted that it is not a tax, by whatever name called. Since the expenditure has been accepted by the assessee during the year under consideration and accordingly, risen during the year under consideration, in this view, it was prayed that the same may be allowed in the year under consideration. In the alternative, it was submitted that same expenses may be allowed in the year in which they have arisen. 11. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of the authorities below and considered the material available on record. We see that the learned CIT(Appeals) has given very detailed findings on this issue, which are recorded at page 13, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|