9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 149, sub Section (3) of Section 153 is a proviso to sub section (2) thereof. We find that the plain language of sub-section (2) of Section 150 clearly restricts the application of sub-section (1) of Section 150 to enable the authorities to reopen the assessments which have not already become final on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed u/s 149(2) of the Act. In the light of above discussion in respect of provisions of Section 150(1) and (2) of the Act and relying on various judicial pronouncements as relied on by the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee as well as discussed as above by us and the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Computer Science Corporation India (P) Limited (2013 (3) TMI 743 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT), we are of the considered opinion that the directions issued by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 150(1) of the Act for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 are barred by limitation legally and not permissible considering the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the same are directed to be expunged and deleted. - I.T.A. No. 834/Ind/2016 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2017 - SHRI C. M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. 2003-04 11,42,000 15,66,118 4,24,118 2. 2004-05 2,58,000 3,53,743 95,743 3. 2005-06 2,75,000 3,77,173 1,03,173 Total 16,75,000 22,97,034 6,22,034 After rejecting the objections raised by the Valuer of the assessee, the addition of ₹ 6,22,034/- was made to the returned income of the assessee in the assessment of assessment year 2007-08 on account of undisclosed investment in the construction of the house. In addition to above, the AO made additional addition of ₹ 3 lakhs on account of expenditure/investment in furniture, interiors, furnishings, elevation for the assessment year 2007-08. 6. The matter carried to the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions by observing as under :- 12.4 I have considered the facts of the case and the writt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In support of this contention, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Indore Bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Om Prakash Bagdia, Ujjain vs. ACIT, Ujjain, (2005) 4 ITJ 106 (Indore Tribunal) (copy placed on record), wherein it was held that the ld. CIT(A) while directing the AO to issue notice u/s 148 after recording reasons shown by him as transgression of his jurisdiction and above all when an issue is regarding the validity of report of DVO and the assessment order based on the same, has already been decided by the Tribunal in other assessment years, wherein also the same DVO s report was relied for making the assessment. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further relied on the decision of Lilasons Industries Limited vs. ACIT, Bhopal, (2016) 29 ITJ 261 (Indore Trib.) dated 30.06.2016 (copy filed), wherein relying on the plethora of judgments, it was observed as under :- 20. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. We have also gone through the case laws relied upon by the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee. We find that the gist of the plethora of judgments quoted above is that where any assessment year was not before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment of the firm should be assessed in the hands of a partner as his individual income. For the assessment year 1957-58, the ITO made an addition which included certain sum introduced in the head office cash book in November 1955. On appeal, the AAC deleted the addition of said sum on the ground that the said sum was outside the financial year 1956-57, relevant to the assessment year in question. The Court further observed that in the instant case the AAC was dealing with the propriety of the assessment for assessment year 1957-58. He found that the said sum did not relate to that year. That finding was sufficient to dispose of the item. He would not record a definite finding that this very item represented income of the assessee from an undisclosed source for assessment year 1956-57. We find that in the instant case the assessment year involved before the ld. CIT(A) was A.Y. 2011-12. The observations made for assessment years 2010-11 and 2009-10 would be out of the jurisdiction of the ld. CIT(A), as before him no such assessment year was pending. As the issue is squarely covered by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court judgments, we hold that the directions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO in the table given in the assessment order. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the contention of the assessee that the same cannot be added for the assessment year under appeal. Hence, it was deleted. However, the ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to tax the said unexplained investment in the assessment year 2004-05 to 2006-07 as per provisions of Section 150(1) of the Act. The ld. DR contended that it is within the power of the ld. CIT(A) to direct the AO for taking any action of which addition has been disputed and is subject matter of appeal before him. It was submitted that the AO can invoke the provisions of Section 150(1) of the Act to assume jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act for which the ld. CIT(A) has given the reasons and directions in the said order. In support of his view, the ld. DR also placed reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Suvina Krupal vs. ITO, Ward 1, Medikeri, I.T.A.Nos. 336 337/Bang/2014 (A.Ys. 2003-04 2004-05 ) dated 29.06.2015 (copy of order was filed), wherein it was observed as under :- 5.3.4 From the above, in our view, it is evident that the ld. CIT(A) has given a clear finding that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n section 149, the notice under section 148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment or recomputation in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order passed by any authority in any proceeding under this Act by way of appeal, reference or revision 1 or by a court in any proceeding under any other law]. (2) The provisions of sub- section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such assessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub- section relates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment or recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the subject- matter of the appeal, reference or revision, as the case may be, was made by reason of any other provision limiting the time within which any action for assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be taken. 14. In view of Section 150(2) of the Act, the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 150 of the Act is not applicable in respect of the assessment year in which the assessment, reassessment or recomputation could not have been made at the time of order, which was subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time within which any action for assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be taken. The word taken refers only to initiation of proceedings and not to completion. The time limit for initiation of such proceedings are contained in Section 149 150 while the time limit for completion of such proceedings are mentioned in sub Section (2) (3) of Section 153 just as Section 150 is the proviso to Section 149, sub Section (3) of Section 153 is a proviso to sub section (2) thereof. We find that the plain language of sub-section (2) of Section 150 clearly restricts the application of sub-section (1) of Section 150 to enable the authorities to reopen the assessments which have not already become final on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed u/s 149(2) of the Act. 15. In the light of above discussion in respect of provisions of Section 150(1) and (2) of the Act and relying on various judicial pronouncements as relied on by the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee as well as discussed as above by us and the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Computer Science Corporation India (P) Limited (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
