9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction Nos.69 & 70/Mds/2015 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. 2.The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- "(i) on the facts and the circumstances of the case, whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in dismissing the grounds raised by the Revenue, on the ground that the assessing officer should have started computation of income from the returned income instead of assessed income as determined in the original assessment order, when the additions made in the original assessment are not the subject matter of review order u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act? (ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in deleting the addition made under Section 40(3) of the IT Act, even t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eved by such re-assessment, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Tiruchirapalli in ITA.Nos.78 and 79/13-14/CIT(A)/TRY. In the meanwhile, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Tiruchirapalli issued notice under Section 263 of the Act stating that for the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee filed a reconciliation stating that a sum of Rs. 18,74,70,100/- was credited in the company's name and this was not found in the assessee's book of account and the assessee did not give any explanation with details of such payment nor confirmation was obtained from that company. Therefore, the Commissioner opined that this amount should be brought to tax under Section 68 of the Act for the assessement year 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef under the other heads. 10. The Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal in which cross objections had been filed by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our considered view, rightly took note of the fact that the Assessing Officer started from the income of Rs. 1,81,40,652/- originally assessed and made two further additions in the fresh assessment pursuant to order under Section 263 of the Act. The Assessing Officer could not have done so because the original assessment order was no more in force when the fresh assessment proceedings pursuant to the order under Section 263 was taken up by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer could not have started from the income of Rs. 1,81,40,652/-, ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT(A) that it was proceeds of the deposits made by the assessee in the assessment year 2005-06 and the assessee had accounted accrued interest of Rs. 77,188/- and the assessee did not raise any ground citing violation of Rule 6DD. The revenue has not made out any grounds to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal. 14. Similar is the matter concerning the assessment year 2009- 10. In the said order, the Assessing Officer made a fresh addition of a sum of Rs. 76,32,000/- under Section 40A(3) on the cash payment for land purchase. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer committed similar mistake as was done in the assessment year 2008- 09 in computing the income of the assessee and consequently held that the CIT(A) having s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
