9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reopening of assessments for both these assessment is bad in law. Thus, Ground No.1 is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. We have perused the reasons for reopening the assessment for both these Assessment Years which is placed at Page No.1 of the Paper Books for the respective years and found that reasons given for reopening the assessment was in respect of a loan advanced to Shri Vivek Mehrotra and such loan was said to be not for the business consideration and therefore the Assessing Officer was of the view that income had escaped assessment. In the reasons given by the Assessing Officer for reopening of assessment in both these Assessment Years there is not even whisper about the disallowance in respect of section 14A of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (331 ITR 236) and in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. (349 ITR 482). Considering the aforesaid case laws, learned CIT(A) concluded as under :- In the instant case, it is observed that the assessment in the case of the assessee was reopened on the ground that the loan advanced by the assessee to Shri Vivek Mehrotra of ₹ 102.02 crores is of the nature of an accommodation entry. The AO while completing the re-assessment did not make any addition on the said ground for which the assessment was reopened. Therefore, in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jet Airways (supra), the AO could not have completed the re-assessment after making any further addition/ disallowance on a fresh issue. However, in the insta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that no disallowance is permissible in this case u/s. 14A on the touchstone of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Jet Airways Ltd. (supra) in as much as no disallowance has been done on the issue on which reopening has been done. As a matter of fact, he Revenue is not in appeal against this order of learned CIT(A). Thus, I hold that learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding part of the disallowance u/s. 14A, when he held at the threshold that no disallowance u/s. 14A is permissible in as much as no disallowance was done on the issue on which reopening was made. Accordingly, I set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and delete the disallowance." 7. On a perusal of the reasons in the appeals under consideration, we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
