9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince there is no material filed by the assessee before the Tribunal to prove that the assessee had more cash than ₹ 45,000/- as estimated by the AO as on 13-04-2009, find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A), confirming the addition of ₹ 5,50,000/- made during the year. AY.2009-10, the assessee has claimed refund of taxes paid i.e., ₹ 5,95,000/- paid as self-assessment tax and there is a liability of assessee for the AY.2010-11 since the amount has been brought to tax in the AY.2010-11. The Department is therefore directed to adjust the self-assessment tax paid by the assessee for the AY.2009-10 towards tax liability of the assessee for the AY.2010-11, and the balance amount shall be refunded to the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income for the AY.2010-11 and also that the income admitted by the assessee for the AY.2009-10 is not commensurate with the taxes paid. Therefore, AO re-opened the assessment u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act [Act] and issued a notice u/s.148 of the Act on 14-11-2012. In reply to the same, the assessee filed a letter on 27-11-2012, requesting the AO to treat the return filed on 12-06-2009 as compliance to notice u/s.148 of the Act. 3. During the re-assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee was found with cash of ₹ 5,95,000/- by the police on 13-04-2009 and has remitted the same to the Government Account as self-assessment tax but the income returned by the assessee in the return of income for AY.2009-10 is not commens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 2. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147, where the notice u/s 148 was issued with the same reasons as that of reasons of notice u/s 148 for the assessment year 2010-11. 3. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 partly, as the addition made with a presumption of escapement of income by issuing notice u/s 148 is deleted, therefore, the other addition of ₹ 4,67,081/ - has no legs to stand. 4. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s 148 as the same is issued with identical reasons for assessment yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Commissioner erred in confirming the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147, where the notice u/s 148 was issued with the same reasons as that of notice u/s 148 for the assessment year 2009-10. 3. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the validity of notice u/s 148 as the same is issued with identical reasons for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 4. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the assessee is having sufficient cash balance as per the statements filed along with the return of income for the assessment year 2009-10. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary . 4. Ld.Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was reopened has therefore proceeded to consider the return of income filed by the assessee and made the addition of un-explained creditors and therefore, the re-assessment cannot be held to be invalid . It is submitted that once an assessment has been validly re-opened and the addition has been made on the ground on which the assessment was re-opened, the AO was entitled to look into other issues and make any other additions of income, which comes to his notice during the re-assessment proceedings. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record, I find that the sum of ₹ 5,50,000/- has been brought to tax in the AY.2009-10 on protective basis. As rightly pointed out by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee, the cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of Ld.CIT(A), confirming the addition of ₹ 5,50,000/- made during the year. I find that for the AY.2009-10, the assessee has claimed refund of taxes paid i.e., ₹ 5,95,000/- paid as self-assessment tax and there is a liability of assessee for the AY.2010-11 since the amount has been brought to tax in the AY.2010-11. The Department is therefore directed to adjust the self-assessment tax paid by the assessee for the AY.2009-10 towards tax liability of the assessee for the AY.2010-11, and the balance amount shall be refunded to the assessee as per law. 7. In the result, the appeal of assessee for the AY.2009-10 is allowed and the appeal for the AY.2010-11 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th Feb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
