9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,43,897/-. Since the return was filed beyond the time allowed of upto one year from the relevant assessment year, the same was treated as invalid. The AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 15th June, 2012 after recording the following reasons which has been reproduced by the CIT(A) on page 4 of the order:- "In this case, the assessee has filed her return declaring total income of Rs. 9,43,897/- (ITR-4) for the A.Y. 2010-11 in this office at ASK Counter vide ASK No. 090200412000468 on 20.04.2012, and received in Circle-21 (1) on 20.04.2012. As per provisions of section 139 (1) of Income tax Act, 1961, the assessee was required to furnish her return of income by 31st July, 2010 without liable for any penal interest and upto 31.03.2011 without any penalty u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. Further as per the provisions of section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, the assessee was required to furnish the return upto 31.03.2012 alongwith penalty u/s 271F & other consequential actions. However, since the assessee failed to stick any of the above mandatory schedule of filing of her Income Tax return the above mentioned return was treated as invalid being time-barred. Penalty Notice u/s 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings. However, so far as the additions are concerned, the ld.CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee by restricting the addition of Rs. 23,10,000/- to Rs. 11,66,103/- and deleting the addition of Rs. 10 lakh. However, she sustained the remaining additions 6. Similarly, in the case of Shri Joginder Dahiya, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings. However, so far as the addition on merit is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) restricted the addition of Rs. 18,48,495/- and Rs. 19,08,853/- to Rs. 20 lakhs and confirmed the addition of Rs. 20,000/-. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:- "Jurisdictional Ground: Proceedings are invalid. 1. That notice issued u/s 148, order passed in consequence thereto, subsequent order passed by Ld. CITA are bad in law because reasons recorded were never communicated during the course of assessment proceedings and even otherwise as apparent from assessment order reasons are based on mere AIR information, which in turn were based on cash deposit, which cannot give reason to believe for income escaping assessment. 2. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assesseee while arguing the appeal in the case of Smt. Raj Bala as the lead case, submitted that the assessee had filed the return of income on 20th April, 2012 declaring the total income at Rs. 9,43,897/-. Since the said return was filed beyond the time prescribed as per the provisions of section 139(4) of the Act, the same was treated as invalid. The AO, in the order passed u/s 147/143(3) has accepted the said return of income, but, made various other additions. He submitted that when the pre 148 return amount and the post 148 return amount remains the same, which is the only basis for reopening, the AO should have dropped the proceedings at that very stage given the scheme of section 147 and 148 of the Act especially in view of provisions of section 152(2) of the Act. He submitted that since the pre-148 return and post 148 return amount remained the same which is the only basis for reopening, no further notice u/s 143(2) should have been issued after post 148 return since nothing survives to scrutinize as far as limited and restricted scope of reopening proceedings are concerned vis-à-vis the income escaping assessment. 9. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly relied on the order of the CIT(A) so far as the validity of the reassessment proceedings are concerned. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has given justifiable reasons as to how and why the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO are valid. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has already given substantial relief to the assesseee and in absence of any further material brought to the notice of the Bench, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. 12. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find, the assessee, in the instant case filed the return of income on 20th April, 2012 declaring the total income at Rs. 9,43,897/- which was beyond the time prescribed u/s 139(4) and therefore, was treated nonest by the AO. We find, the AO issued notice u/s 148 after recording reasons that income to the tune of Rs. 9,43,897/- has escaped assessment, the reasons for which have already been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s being conjunctive and cumulative. It is of some significance that Parliament has not used the word "or". The Legislature did not rest content by merely using the word "and". The words "and" as well as "also" have been used together and in conjunction." ... Evidently, therefore, what Parliament intends by use of the words "and also" is that the Assessing Officer, upon the formation of a reason to believe Under Section 147 and the issuance of a notice under Section 148(2) must assess or reassess: (i). 'such income'; and also (ii) any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section. The words 'such income' refer to the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and in respect of which the Assessing Officer has formed a reason to believe that it has escaped assessment. Hence, the language which has been used by Parliament is indicative of the position that the assessment or reassessment must be in respect of the income in respect of which he has formed a reason to believe that it has escaped assessment and also in respect of any other income which c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer and sub-section (1) thereof mandates service of notice to the assessee before the Assessing Officer proceeds to assess, reassess or recompute escaped income. Section 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the Assessing Officer that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. All these conditions are required to be fulfilled to assess or reassess the escaped income chargeable to tax. As per explanation (3) if during the course of these proceedings the Assessing Officer comes to conclusion that some items have escaped assessment, then notwithstanding that those items were not included in the reasons to believe as recorded for initiation of the proceedings and the notice, he would be competent to make assessment of those items. However, the legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to the Assessing Officer that on assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 regarding assessment or reassessment of escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction. For every new issue coming befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inion that the AO has exceeded his jurisdiction in reassessing issues other than the issues in respect of which the proceedings are initiated and reasons for the initiation of those proceedings cease to survive. We, therefore, hold that the various other additions made by the AO are not in accordance with the law being without jurisdiction and, therefore, are to be deleted. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the grounds raised by the assessee on merit are not being adjudicated being academic in nature. ITA No.3397/Del/2017 (2010-11) 14. The assessee in the grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in partly sustaining the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, in the quantum appeal we have deleted the various additions made by the AO and partly sustained by the CIT(A), therefore, the penalty does not survive. Accordingly the order of the CIT(A) partly sustaining the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) is set aside and the AO is directed to cancel the penalty. ITA No.3398/Del/2017 15. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- "Jurisdictional Ground: Proceedings are invalid. "1. That notice issued u/s 148, order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
