9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bjections to the initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. Therefore, there was no justifiable reasons for the AO to deprive the assessee of the recorded reasons by him for initiating proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. Therefore, the reopening in question is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, the same is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 6650/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2016 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh. Suriya Kishan Juneja CA For The Department : Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the impugned Order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Dehradun relevant to assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the addition to the returned income as sustained by the ld. CIT (A) may please be deleted. 7. That in fact and circumstance of the case, appellant be permitted to add or delete any grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is deriving income from business of civil construction work. The return of income for A.Y. 2005-06 was filed on 16.03.2006 declaring taxable income of ₹ 1,34,120/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 on 21.03.2006 resulting a refund ₹ 240/-. During the course of assessment proceeding for A.Y.2004-05 which was completed on 02.12.2011, the assessee has filed an affidavit dated 20.10.2011 alongwith written reply that he had purchased a piece-of land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y making various addition totaling to ₹ 15,40,000/- vide his order dated 20.3.2013 and passed the assessment order u/s. 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Against the Order of the Ld. AO, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 12.10.2015 has partly allowed the the appeal of the assesseee. 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee is in Appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has argued the legal ground challenging the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 148 of the Act. He stated that AO initiated notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 19.3.2012 and in reply to the same assessee replied vide his letter dated 27.8.2012 stating the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment in the case of Kuber Tobacco Products the provisions of section 292BB is not retrospective but are applicable only from the A.Y. 2008-09. Hence, on this account also both the authorities are erred and accordingly, their orders deserve to be quashed. 7. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) and stated that he has passed a well reasoned order, which needs to be upheld. 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with us, especially the orders of the revenue authorities and the case law cited by the assessee s counsel on the issue in dispute. In my view, it is very much necessary to reproduce the contents of the reply dated 27.8.2012 of the assessee in response to the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the counsel . 8.3 After carefully going through all the documents available with me, especially the reply to the notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act and the order of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of GNK Driveshafts (India) ltd. vs. ITO reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC) as cited by the ld. Counsel of the Assessee, I find that the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO 259 ITR 19 (2003) has held that it is clear that the completion of assessment/re-assessment without furnishing the reasons recorded by the AO for initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act is not sustainable in law as it is incumbent on the AO to supply them within reasonable time. I note that on the anvil of this jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
