9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for assessment does not deserve acceptance, which is evident from the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer. Similarly, the question whether or not the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction in consonance with the requirements of Section 147 of the Act, has to be dealt with in the facts of each case. Therefore, the contention that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by decision of the Supreme Court in NEW DELHI TELEVISION [ 2020 (4) TMI 133 - SUPREME COURT ] cannot be accepted. For the aforementioned reasons, the second substantial question of law is answered in favour of the revenue. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD APPELLANTS (BY Mr. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) RESPONDENT (BY Mr. BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.) - - - JUDGMENT ALOK ARADHE J., This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2003-04. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 11.04.2014 on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.12.2010 allowed the bid to the extent which was debited in the profit and loss account and refused to allow the claim for deduction of a sum of ₹ 50,43,043/-, which is a bid loss referable to the period beyond the Previous Year. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 30.07.2012 deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of ₹ 50,43,043/-. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed. Being aggrieved, the assessee as well as the revenue filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by a common order dated 14.08.2013 dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue by placing reliance on its order in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2005-06 and the appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed on the ground that the re-assessment proceeding is invalid. Being aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that assessing authority had rightly invoked Section 147 of the Act for re-assessment and reasons recorded by the authority fulfilled all the condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the contention of the revenue that there was no true and full disclosure on the part of the assessee does not deserve acceptance. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that an Assessing Officer can only reopen the assessment if he has reason to believe that undisclosed income has escaped re-assessment. The relevant extract of Section 147 of the Act reads as under: 147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already debited to P l, the same cannot be further claimed in the Memo of computation. Hence, on this reasoning ₹ 7,14,76,102/- is not allowable. This assumes importance because of theorder of High Court of Karnataka Dated 17.11.2009. Because, for the instant Assessment Year, the AO added back ₹ 7,20,32,155/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance but the ITAT had given relief to the assessee. Besides, the assessee has been relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Bilahari Investments and claiming the bid loss in both P L A/C and the memo of computation of income. In the appeal of the Department under Section 260A, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, vide order dated 17.11.2009 for A.Y. 1998-99, differed from the decision of Apex Court in M/s Bilahari Investments and set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka accepted the arguments of the revenue that Notification No.69E dated 25.1.1996 and S.145(2) had not been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to consider the effect of the notification and amendment to S.145(2) and stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court confined it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the law as laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that initiation of reassessment proceedings by the AO in the present case is not in accordance with law. The order of reassessment is therefore liable to be annulled and the same is hereby annulled. In view of the decision on the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings, the other issues raised by the assessee on merits do not require any consideration. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. Thus, from perusal of the order passed by the tribunal, it is evident that tribunal, in addition, has placed reliance on the decision in the case of DHFL VYSYA HOUSING LTD. rendered by the tribunal, which has been set aside by this court in I.T.A.No.244/2013 vide judgment dated 23.09.2013. The tribunal has not taken note of the fact that the Assessing Officer had recorded reasons and has held that a statement of income from assessment has taken place due to failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary on the part of the assessee. The tribunal has further held that it has not been disputed before the tribunal that proviso to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
