9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the re-assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act. For this assessee has raised following ground No.1: - "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is itself bad-in-law." 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of sales and purchases of scrap. The assessee for the filed his return of income on 26-09-2009 and original AY completed under section 143(3) on 23-12-2011. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by recording the following reasons: - "In this case scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment to bring to tax appropriate income of the assessee. The case therefore, needs to be re-opened by issue of notice u/s.148 of the. IT. Act,1961." And notice under section 148 of the Act dated 28-03-2014 was issued and accordingly, re-assessment was framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 17-03-2015 by making addition of cash deposits under section 69C of the Act amounting to Rs. 18,97,450/-. The learned Counsel for the assessee raised objection for recording of reasons before the AO and he argued that the AO has not adjudicated the objections except the following: - "The representative then attended on 2nd December 2011 with partial details. He was requested to furnish fur/her details by 9th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment is upheld and ground 1 dismissed." Aggrieved now, assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal. 4. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee first of all argued that the re-opening is done on the basis of the reason that there is an audit objection. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the relevant audit objection which reads as under: - "During the Audit scrutiny, it is noticed that the case was selected through CASS in order to verify the sources of cash deposited Rs. 1897450/- in the saving account with ICICI Bank In this regard the assessee has submitted as under: - ".........the assessee had done personal business on metal scrap during this year ended 31.03.2009. He had purchased met ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Purity Techtextile Private Limited vs. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 459 (Bom), Delhi High Court in the case of Xerox Modicorp Ltd. vs DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 308 (Delhi) and Gujarat High Court in the case of Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 392 ITR 336 (Guj) and also Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 306 (SC). 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR relied on the decision of 247 ITR (13) SC and 102 ITR 287 SC. 7. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I find that the original assessment was completed u/ s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23-12-2011. Subsequently, due to audit objection th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. Even the AO in his comments to assessee's objection to reasons has clearly admitted that the entire information was before him but he could not go into details in view of time barring assessment and workload. He recorded in his objections the following facts: - "........... The representative then attended on 2nd December 2011 with partial details. He was requested to furnish further details by 9th December 2011but he submitted the some on 21.12.2011 i.e. fag end of time barring month of December and has thus killed the time and gave the Assessing officer a very short period during which and due to time barring pressure could not properly applied the mind and verified the facts and details produced / submitted. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in nature. 19. Since the reasons recorded have been prompted by the revenue audit's opinion as admitted in the counter-affidavit, it is not necessary to examine the contention of the revenue based on the observations of the majority in paragraph 23 of the judgment in Usha International Ltd. (supra)." 9. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Purity Techtextile Private Limited Vs. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 459 (Bom) has considered the almost similar issue which reads as under: - "16. Insofar as the companion writ petition is concerned (Writ Petition No. 268 of 2010), the reopening of the assessment has taken place within a period of four years from the expiry of the relevant assessment year. However, so far as this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
