9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n favour of the assessee. Validity of reopening of assessment - Held that:- A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act, the AO was well within his right in re-opening the assessment on the ground. The A.O. has come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income from assessment. The notice has also been issued within the prescribed time. Therefore, we uphold the validity of reopening of the assessment u/s.147 and notice u/s.148 of the Act. These grounds of appeal challenging the validity of the reassessment are thus dismissed. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No.2340/Ahd/2012, I.T.A. No.2341/Ahd/2012, I.T.A. No.180/Ahd/2013, I.T.A. No.948/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2017 - SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued on 07/09/2010. In response to the said notice assessee vide its letter dated 02/10/2010, requested that the return of income filed on 24/10/2005 filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, and also sought for reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The reason recorded for reopening assessment was given to the assessee. The assessee objected to the reopening of the assessment vide its letter dated 30/08/2011, which were received by the Assessing Officer on 02/09/2011 and same was also intimated to the assessee on 16/09/2011. 4. Thereafter, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, were issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response to the notice A.R. attended from time to time and furnished the details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s instruction No.1827 dtd. 31/08/1989 is concerned, the said instruction deals with some judgments of Supreme Court and High Court. The said ratio are discussed in brief hereunder: The assessee has also relied upon some decisions which are as under: (i) G. Venkataswami Naidu Co. CIT 35 ITR 594 (SC) (ii) H. Mohmad Co. Vs. CIT 107 ITR 637 (Guj) (iii) Sardar Indrasingh Sons Ltd. Vs. CIT 24 ITR 415 (SC) (iv) SBH Vs. CIT 151 ITR 703(AP) (v) Karamchand Thaper Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 83 ITR 899 (SC) 8. But Ld. A.O. was not agree with the contention of the assessee and made addition of ₹ 28,51,267/- and same was treated as business income. 9. Ground No.4 with regard to confirming disallowance of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pening the assessment on the ground. The A.O. has come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income from assessment. Therefore, the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 is not applicable in the instant case. The notice has also been issued within the prescribed time. Therefore, we uphold the validity of reopening of the assessment u/s.147 and notice u/s.148 of the Act. These grounds of appeal challenging the validity of the reassessment are thus dismissed. 12. In the result A.O. directed to delete the addition of ₹ 28,51,267 as assessee is entitled for Short Term/ Long Term Capital Gains and this amount is not of his business income. 13. In the result, appeal filed by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /Ahd/2013 for assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- (i) The Ld.CIT(A)-XXI, Ahmedabad has erred both in law and on facts of the case in passing an appellate order for A.Y. 2007-08 on 03/12/2012. (ii) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 7,04,898/- being Short Capital Gain and ₹ 48,34,320/-being Long Term Capital Gain on sale of investment in Shares Securities as business income. 18. As we heard in two earlier appeal and in Ground No.2 confirming of addition of ₹ 7,04,898/- and ₹ 48,34,320/- being Long Term Capital Gain on sale of investment in Shares Securities. As we heard in earlier two connecting appeal, same not a business income and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
