9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of assessment proceedings. Issuing notice U/s 148 of the Act, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some other income and if he intends to do so, a fresh notice U/s 148 would be necessary, we are of the considered view that the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained cash deposit in the assessee s bank account cannot be sustained as the very reasons for reopening the assessment has not been made the subject matter of assessment in the hands of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA. No. 283/JP/2019 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33,80,90,800/- has escaped assessment and notice U/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29.03.2017 after seeking necessary approval. In response, the assessee filed his return of income declaring loss of ₹ 20,83,207/- from transactions in commodity derivative. The loss so claimed on account of commodity trading was examined by the Assessing Officer and the same was not allowed to be carried forward given that the assessee has not filed its return of income U/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, on perusal of bank account of the assessee, the AO observed that there are cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee to the tune of ₹ 20,90,065/- which was considered by the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways 331 ITR 236 where the decision of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 has also been followed. It was accordingly submitted that in view of the factual matrix of the case and the binding judicial precedents where the alleged income in respect of which the notice has been issued U/s 148 of the Act was found non-existent, then the AO is precluded to extend his jurisdiction to tax any other income in the hands of the assessee. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR is heard who has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee is not allowed to carry forward the speculation loss, as the assessee has not filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. In light of above, it is clear that the reasons which has been recorded before issuance of notice U/s 148 of the Act relates to income in respect of commodity transaction which has escaped assessment during financial year 2009-10 relevant to the impugned assessment year. During the course of assessment proceedings, the said transactions were examined and the returned loss of ₹ 20,83,207/- was accepted by the Assessing Officer however the assessee was not allowed to carry forward the same as the assessee has not filed return of income U/s 139(1) of the Act. It is therefore clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
