9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010-11. The CIT (A) did not stop with this observations, but made further observation by stating that, the Assessing Officer can only take cognizance of the matter, by way of initiating suitable proceedings for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The petitioner seeks to interpret the word 'Can' by stating that, it cannot be construed as direction, but the petitioner should read the word 'Can' along with next word 'Only. CIT(A) has pointed out that the Assessing Officer can only take cognizance of the matter, by way of initiating suitable proceedings for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. In such circumstances, it cannot be taken, as if, the observation contained in the order passed by CIT(A) is of no consequence. Such plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Petitions, challenging the proceedings of the respondent for re-opening of the assessment for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 3. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petitions are as follows:- i) The petitioner was formed as a Partnership Firm and registered with the Registrar of Firms. They are engaged in the business of commercial and trading activities, including investing, acquiring and holding shares, stocks, assets and other securities. ii) For the assessment year 2012-13, the petitioner filed returns of income on 27.07.2013, admitting NIL income. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the petitioner offered their explanation to the Assessing Officer. The assessment was completed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 27.09.2017. These are impugned in these Writ Petitions. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the Assessing Officer, in the reasons assigned in the impugned orders for re-opening the assessment has stated, as if, there is a direction issued by CIT (A), while allowing the petitioner's Appeal, by order, dated 13.10.2016, and grossly erred in re-opening the assessment, merely by treating the observation in the said order, dated 13.10.2016, as a direction issued under Section 150 (1) of the Act to re-open the assessment. 5. It is further submitted that, mere observation of the CIT (A) that the Assessing Officer can take cognizance of the matter, by way of initiating suitable proceedings, cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 7. The CIT (A), while allowing the petitioner's Appeals, made an observation in para No. 7 of his order, dated 13.10.2016. The relevant portions of the observation are as follows:- From the facts on record, it is clear that the contention of the appellant that no fresh capital whatsoever was introduced during the FY 2011-12 relevant to the AY 2012-13, which is the AY in question, in the books of the appellant-Firm is correct. Thus, the claim of the appellant that the sum of ₹ 108,35,05,000/- represents the opening balance of capital in the books of the appellant, is found to be correct. In other words, the amount of ₹ 108,35,05,000/- which has been disallowed/added back as unexplained credit u/s 68 by the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y.2010-11, no return of income is filed. The capital introduced during the year is a sum of ₹ 64 crores. The Ld. CIT (A) had not provided relief to the assessee firm based on the finding on the genuineness of the source of credit, but only on the aspect of the year of introduction of the said credit. 10. The petitioner submitted their objections dated 11.09.2017, in which, it is stated that, that CIT (A) nowhere, directed the Assessing Officer to consider the Partner's capital in the subject assessment years, and there was not even a passing observation to the said effect. Therefore, the assumption on the part of the respondent that the CIT (A) has directed him to re-open the assessment is factually incorrect, and the very b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observations, but made further observation by stating that, the Assessing Officer can only take cognizance of the matter, by way of initiating suitable proceedings for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The petitioner seeks to interpret the word 'Can' by stating that, it cannot be construed as direction, but the petitioner should read the word 'Can' along with next word 'Only. 12. The CIT(A) has pointed out that the Assessing Officer can only take cognizance of the matter, by way of initiating suitable proceedings for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. In such circumstances, it cannot be taken, as if, the observation contained in the order passed by CIT(A) is of no consequence. Such plea cannot be raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
