9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the reopening of assessment is upheld for both the assessment years. The Managing Partner of the assessee firm, during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act, admitted to have earned an income on the sale of culled birds during the past two years, 50% of the same was assessed to tax as income from the sale of culled birds. The above admission by the Managing Partner was not disputed during the course of reassessment proceedings. The second addition was with regard to profit on sale of lorries which was omitted to be assessed in the regular assessment. Third additions is income from sale of birds dropping as manure, which was estimated to the extent of .50,000/- and assessed to tax. The fourth head of addition was totaling mistake in the capital account of the partners tand the same was assessed to tax. The assessee has not filed any details to controvert the above additions made by the Assessing Officer either before the ld. CIT(A) or even before the Tribunal. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the orders of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. After conduct of survey under section 133A of the Act on 18.02.2005, the above said assessment was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was completed by determining the taxable income of the assessee at ₹.90,48,510/-. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) for both the assessment years. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for both the assessment years. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years. With regard to reopening of assessment, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the reassessment was barred by limitation without any fresh materials in possession of the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment already completed under section 143(3) of the Act by considering all the details furnished by the assessee including statement recoded during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act on 18.02.2005. Hence, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haustively examining the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered its judgment in the context of section 34(1)(b) of the 1922 Act, which is pari materia with the extant provision (section 147) are as under: "Section 34(1)(b) would apply to the following categories of cases: (1) where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions; (2) where in the original assessment the income liable to tax has escaped assessment due to oversight, inadvertence or a mistake committed by the Income Tax Officer; (3) where the information is derived from an external source of any kind: such external source would include discovery of new and important matters or knowledge of fresh facts which were not present at the time of original assessment; and (4) where the information may be obtained even from the record of the original assessment from an investigation of the materials on the record or the facts disclosed thereby or from other enquiry or research into facts or law. Where, however, the Income Tax Officer gets no subsequent information, but merely proceeds to reopen the original assessment without any fresh facts or materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect, it may be appreciated, is essentially a matter of fact, the law only barring a change of opinion. Where, therefore, there is a live and clear nexus between the said information and the reasons to believe escapement of income, formed on that basis, the assumption of jurisdiction to reassess cannot be called into question as was sought to be canvassed before us. Thus, we hold that the entire assessment in this case is valid and therefore, the reopening of assessment is upheld for both the assessment years. 6. With regard to confirmation of additions of ₹.3,20,306/-, in the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made the additions under various heads and the same are reproduced as under: 1. Income from sale of culled birds ₹. 2,00,000 2. Profit on sale of lorries ₹. 47,796 3. Income from sale of birds' dropping as manure ₹. 50,000 4. Mistake in capital accounts of partners ₹. 22,510 Total ₹. 3,20,306 The Managing Partner of the assessee firm, during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act, admitted to have earned an income of ₹.3,97,620/- on the sale of culled birds during the past two years, 50% of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
