9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the lower authority. On merit of the addition the agreement for sale of bus is a composite one, including the route permit. Merely because there was a time gap for renewal of the route permit, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that it cannot be construed as what was sold by the assessee is only the bus and not route permit. Though renewal was initially rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, the same was subsequently renewed by the Appellate authority. Therefore, the legal presumption is that the route permit continues without any interruption. Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee sold the bus along with route permit for a sale consideration of ₹ 70,75,000/-. It may be a case of the assessee that the entire sum of ₹ 70,75,000/- was not received and what was received was only ₹ 50,00,000/- as per the receipt found during the search operation. As rightly observed by the CIT(Appeals), the assessee followed mercantile system of accounting, therefore, the right to receive the balance amount out of ₹ 70,75,000/- is accrued to the assessee, therefore, the same has to be taken as income for computation. Accordingly, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08.2006, was made under Section 153C of the Act on 31.12.2008 and the Assessing Officer by a notice dated 28.03.2011 reopened the assessment earlier made under Section 153C of the Act on 31.12.2008. The Ld.counsel further clarified that even though there was no prohibition in the Income-tax Act for issuing notice under Section 148, consequent to second search conducted by the Revenue, provisions of Section 153C of the Act exclude the application of Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. Therefore, the reopening is not justified. 3. Coming to the merit of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the Ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that during the course of search operation in the case of Shri K. Paneerselvam, an agreement dated 11.12.2003 relatable to the assessee was found. Referring to the agreement dated 11.12.2003, a copy of which is available at page 11 of the paper-book, the Ld.counsel submitted that even though it was agreed to transfer the bus along with route permit for a sale consideration of ₹ 70,75,000/-, subsequently it was found that the route permit was expired on 23.04.2004 and the Regional Transport Authority refused to renew the route permit beyond 23.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Ld. D.R., after reopening what was assessed is only an undisclosed income for the block period. It is not a regular assessment. Since a block assessment was already made under Section 153C of the Act on the basis of material found during the search operation in the case of Velmurugan group companies, according to the Ld. D.R., it cannot be said that the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act is not justified. Since the Assessing Officer has made block assessment under Section 153 of the Act on 31.12.2008, according to the Ld. D.R., the said assessment was sought to be reopened by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Ld. D.R. further clarified that under the new scheme of block assessment, the assessment has to be made year-wise and the rate of tax is also similar as that of regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., it may not be necessary to frame another assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act or under Section 153C of the Act. Hence, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer rightly reopened assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 6. Coming to the merit of the addition made by the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... main contention of the assessee is that after the search operation in the case of Shri K. Paneerselvam, the Assessing Officer ought not to have reopened the assessment by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. According to the Ld. A.R., on the basis of search operation, the proceeding should have been initiated under Section 153C of the Act. The fact remains that this is the second round of search conducted by the Revenue authorities subsequent to the material found in the case relatable to the assessee. In the first round of litigation, the search was conducted in the premises of Velmurugan group of companies where the material relating to the assessee was found. Therefore, assessment under Section 153C of the Act was completed on 31.12.2008. Since the block assessment was already completed, the Assessing Officer, on the basis of material found during the search operation on 18.03.2010 in the case of Shri K. Paneerselvam, reopened the block assessment completed on 31.12.2008 by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. Therefore, by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer, in fact, reopened the block assessment which was completed on 31.12.2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
