9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant by Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv Respondent by Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 28/11/2013 passed by CIT(A)-I, New Delhi. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. "That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the reassessment done u/s 148 of the Act initiated on the basis of audit objections raised by the department which is not only illegal but also whimsical and hence the action of the Ld.CIT(A) is liable to be quashed. 2. Because the Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the whimsical disallowances made u/s 24(a) of the Act by disallowing a sum of- ₹ 10,08,000/- . in the view of following:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for addition, modification, alteration, amendment of any of the grounds of appeal. 3. There is a delay of 4 days in filing. The assessee has filed affidavit explain the delay. The DR objected for condonation of delay. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. After going through the affidavit of the assessee, the delay in filing appeal appears to be genuine. Therefore, the delay of four days is condoned. 4. The assessee filed its return of income on 01.11.2004 declaring income of ₹ 22,27,194/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1). On 20.03.2007 there was a search action on the assessee u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While passing the order u/s 153C of the Act dated 24/12/2009, the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed requisite details. The Assessing Officer added rental income amounting to ₹ 33,60,000/- and charged it to tax under income from other sources and deduction @ 30% u/s 24 was disallowed. The Assessing Officer further disallowed ₹ 9,989/- as depreciation claimed by the assessee. The assessment order was passed on 29/12/2011. 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal before the assessee. 7. The Ld. AR submits that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer initiated the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act by issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act 30.03.2011 on the basis of the alleged reasons to believe recorded on 30.03.2011. The Ld. AR sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial much less any tangible material referred for the formation of the alleged belief that depreciation claimed on the fixed assets to the tune of ₹ 1,14,747/- has escaped assessment. The Ld. AR while citing the case laws submitted that in fact in the identical circumstances in the case of Ranjit Hosiery Mills vs. ACIT reported in 215 ITR 867, Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has quashed the reopening of the assessment wherein also notice u/s 148 was issued to disallow the claim of deprecation on Building given on rent. 8. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). The Ld. DR also relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court. 9. We have heard both the parties and peru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... derived from an external source concerning facts or particulars or as to law relating to a matter being on the assessment. The Audit Department is the proper machinery to scrutinize the assessment of the Income Tax Officer and point out the errors if any in law and thus hold that the Income Tax Officer in the circumstances is entitled to reopen the assessment u/s 147B of the Income Tax Act but the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court will not be applicable in the present case as it is not just audit report but the entire investigation relating to proceedings u/s 153C was concluded by the Revenue on the same line before reopening the case u/s 148/147. Thus, there was nothing concrete before the Revenue Authorities to reopen the case afresh th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
