9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Vijay Mehta For The Department : Shri R.P. Meena ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 22.03.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] relevant to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- Ground No.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 in the appellants case in holding that the assessment order dated 22.03.2016 made by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The appellant prays that the order of the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 20,51,350/-. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 30.07.2013 and notice u/s 142(1) dated 03.09.2013 were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was an individual and was earning the income from salary, house property, capital gain and other sources. During the year under consideration, the income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of ₹ 20,51,350/-. Subsequently the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Mumbai invoked the power u/s 263 of the I.T. Act. It was noticed that the assessee was having an account in HSBC Bank a/c., Geneva Account No. BUP-SIFIC-PER-ID-5090162310 to the profile client code No.5091334050 of M/s. Yeel Investment Inc. The assessee disclosed that the amount was lying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition held by the Commissioner of Income Tax Central-2, Mumbai to the tune of ₹ 8,07,94,197/- on protective basis which had already been assessed in the hands of Estate of Late Mr. Vrajlal C. Mehta for the A.Y. 2006-07. The Ld. representative of the assessee has argued that the Hon ble Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax has wrongly invoked the provisions u/s 263 of the Act for the addition of the amount to the tune of ₹ 8,07,94,197/- on protective basis whereas the same has been assessed and taxed in the hands of Mr. Vrajlal C. Mehta on substantive basis for the A.Y. 2006-07, hence, order is not liable to be sustainable of in the eye of law. It is also argued that the said amount has further been added in the case of father, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been challenged in the order u/s 263 of the Act and the said order was set aside by the Hon ble ITAT in ITA. No.3672/M/2016 for the A.Y. 2006-07 dated 14.12.2016. In the said order it has specifically been held that the amount to the tune of ₹ 80,09,400/- for the A.Y. 2006-07 and ₹ 1,57,86,230/- for the A.Y. 2007-08 and an amount of ₹ 24,32,046/- for the A.Y. 2012-13 has already been assessed in the hands of Late Smt. V.C. Mehta. Therefore, there was no need to assess the amount again in the hands of the Smt. Devaunshi Anoop Mehta on protective basis. However, to make more convenient we are referring the relevant part of the order passed by the Tribunal for ready reference :- We have heard the rival contentions and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces of the case. Ground No. 3: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in observing that the appellant did not co-operate by not providing the copy of HSBC Bank statement. The appellant submits that the said observations of Id. A.O. is arbitrary and without appreciating the correct facts and circumstances of the case. Ground No. 4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in not granting the credit of ₹ 2,68,90,154 paid by the appellant on 30.03.2012 on account of self assessment tax. The appellant prays that the action of Ld.AO may kindly be treated as bad in law and the credit of such paid self assessment tax may kindly be directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
