9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3(3) dated 30.03.2016 is not valid and hence the re-assessment order is quashed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed. Since we have quashed the reassessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s147, the appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous and hence dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee's business and is capital expenditure. 2.3. The learned CIT(A) failed to note that after the legislature specifically introduced Sec.32(1)(ii) conferring depreciation on intangible assets, film satellite right which falls within the group of "intangible assets" and it is only capital in nature. 2.4. Having regard to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Assam Bengal Cement (27 ITR 34) the learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored." Objections of the Assessee raised in the CO: 1. "The order of the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). 2.2.5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer could exercise a jurisdiction u/s.147 after four years only on the ground of any escapement by reason of failure on the part of the assessee either to file a return or to disclose truly and fully the material facts necessary for assessment. 2.2.6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have therefore appreciated that the issuance of notice u/s.148 itself is barred by limitation and illegal and the subsequent reassessment proceedings are void ab initio. 2.3. Jurisdiction - Reopening is invalid when there is no failure on the part of assessee to disclose any material facts: 2.3.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not capital in nature and disallowed the same u/s.40(a)(ia). 2.4.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the genuineness and nature of the expenditure was not doubted by the predecessor Assessing Officer, but the same was disallowed only for want of deduction of tax at source by applying provisions of Section 40(a)(ia). 2.4.4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer must necessarily record not only his reason to believe but also the default or failure of assessee to disclose the material facts fully and truly. 2.4.5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that there is no case for "Reason to believe" that income ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct and law and all presumptions made against the Cross Objector by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 4. The Cross Objector craves leave to file additional grounds of Cross Objector at or before the time of hearing." 4. The Cross-Objection was filed after a delay of 116 days. The assessee filed the affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the cross objection pleading, inter alia, that on receipt of the Department's Form No.36 and Grounds of Appeal, the Partners left immediately to his hometown, due to the family health and financial problems faced and had missed to send the same to the Counsel by oversight. Only on 16.02.2019 when the Counsel enquired about the appeal, the partner realized that the appeal papers were not forw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is extracted as under: "2. ……………………………During the assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee had debited a sum of ₹ 25,71,19,000/- towards purchase of satellite rights of films and programmes. The rights were bought from various parties with different purchase costs. On examination of the purchase agreements, it was observed that these were assignments agreements and of purchase agreements. The rights were assigned for a period of 20 to 25 years and it was not a permanent sale of satellite rights or copyrights of the programmes. The Assessing Officer further found that the parties to whom the assignment of the rights was given by the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
