9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, therefore, the Order u/s 147 of the Act is ab initio void. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 85,19,876/-, being unaccounted receipt of the assessee, while computing the book profit u/s 115 JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Apropos the issue of reopening In this case the assessment was reopened for the following noted reasons: During the course of the assessment proceedings in the Asst. Year 2007-08, it was noticed that the assessee company was showing deposit of ₹ 86.74 lakhs received from the buyer of the office space developed by the assessee company. The said deposit was being claimed as refundable after 270 years to the buyer. On this ground, the said dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order no addition was made by him with reference to the reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act. 5. However, the AO proceeded with the reassessment proceedings with reference to some other issues for which reasons were not recorded. The AO proceeded to compute the total income of the assessee under section 115JB at ₹ 2,06,31,753/- as opposed to total income originally assessed under section 115JB at ₹ 1,21,11,877/-. 6. Upon assessee s appeal, the ld. CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that the AO was not competent to continue with the proceeding under section 147 on some other issues or grounds which were not mentioned in the reasons recorded under section 148(2). The ld. CIT(A) held as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easons which did not find mention in the reasons recorded u/s 148(2). 10. This proposition is supported by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jet Airways India Ltd (331 ITR 236) and the Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs CIT (336 ITR 136). Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) held that the impugned order suffered from infirmity, which was without jurisdiction and ab initio void. Therefore, the same was cancelled. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs CIT ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19,576/- on some other issue being unaccounted receipt of the assessee. 10. In these circumstances, we find that the decisions cited by the ld. Counsel of the assessee are applicable to the facts of the case. In this regard, we can gainfully refer to the exposition by this Tribunal in the case of Bhagirath Chandak (supra), which is reproduced as hereunder: 5. We find that this is a purely jurisdictional issue and being a legal issue but factually the AO has made disallowance while invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act but reasons recorded for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act by the AO are entirely different that the assessee has deducted interest on loan from salary income. We find from section 148 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on new issue i.e. disallowance of interest on borrowed funds. As cited by Ld. counsel for the assessee the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. (supra) as well as the case law of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways India Ltd. (supra). Respectfully following the same, we allow the appeal of assessee on jurisdictional issue. 11. We further find that similar view was taken by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-vs- Jet Airways India Ltd. (supra) and Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories India Ltd. (supra). The ratio laid down in these decisions is that reassessment must be in the first place, be in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
