9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was not having any transaction with Ahmedabad Stock Exchange and more particularly during the year under consideration. In the reasons recorded, there is nothing on record that the Assessing Officer on facts formed an opinion that during the year under consideration the assessee was having the transaction with Ahmedabad Stock Exchange. In that view of the matter, even Bye Law No.218 of the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange, upon which reliance has been placed, shall not be attracted and / or applicable at all. In any case, as stated hereinabove, there does not appear to be any non disclosure on the part of the assessee in not disclosing true and correct facts, and therefore, the conditions stipulated under Section 147 to reopen the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pening reads as under; 1. In this case, the assessee has filed Income Tax return for AY 2009-10 on 24/09/2009 declaring loss of ₹ 24,61,628/-. Assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act was finalized on 20/10/2011 determining total income at ₹ 95,990/- 2. The assessee is in the business of shares, stock broking and investment. The assessee filed its return for Assessment Year 2009-10 declaring loss of ₹ 24,61,628/- on 24/09/2009. The income was assessed to ₹ 95,989/- under Section 143(3) of the Act on 20/10/2011. The assessee company was a member and registered share broker of Stock Exchange of Ahmedabad (ASE), Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and National Stock Exchange (NSE). During the year the assessee c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion to the extent it exceeds 40 percent of the brokerage received by the assessee from the client was clearly prohibited by law and to that extent requires to be disallowed under the provisions of Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act. In view of the above, commission expenses of ₹ 51,82,133/- was required to be disallowed under Section 37(1) of the Act. This being not done resulted under assessment of income of ₹ 51,82,133/-. 3. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment to the extent of ₹ 1,31,87,533/- (80,05,400 + 51,82,133). Thus, this is a fit case for re-opening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2009- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer the commission expenses of ₹ 51,81313/- was required to be disallowed under Section 37(1) of the IT Act and this being not done resulted under assessment of income of ₹ 51,82,133/-. The aforesaid hardly can be a valid ground to reopen the concluded assessment beyond the period of four years. The condition as provided under Section 147 of the IT Act to reopen the completed assessment beyond the period of four years are not satisfied. Even there is no allegation in record reopening of the assessment that there was any non disclosure on the part of the assessee, which has resulted into escapement of the income. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even in the objection against the reasons recorded it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
