9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts of the case, for want of jurisdiction, barred by limitation and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the trading addition of Rs. 53,645/- by estimating the business income of Rs. 73,915/- as against 20,270/- declared by the assessee and the ld. AO also erred in making the trading addition without invoking the provisions of Sec. 145(3) of the IT Act. Hence the addition so made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) being contrary to the provisions of law, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 3. Rs. 2,27,540/-: The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has since confirmed the additions and against the said findings, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR taken us through the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuance of notice U/s. 148 of the Act and the same reads as under:- "On the basis of information available for the year under consideration, the assessee has sold an immovable property of Rs. 2475000. Information was called for from the assessee u/s. 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee has not furnished any reply/supporting evidence in response to notice u/s. 133(6). Therefore, the assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts required for her/hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s further submitted that on perusal of the assessment order, it may be noted that the Assessing Officer has accepted the income so declared by the assessee whereas the whole of the sale consideration of Rs. 24,75,000/- has been truly disclosed and the Assessing Officer has not made any addition on the said issue, therefore, where there is no addition in respect of the matter in respect of which the reasons have recorded, the Assessing Officer is precluded from making any other addition in terms of disallowance of construction expenses as well as transfer expenses and trading addition so made by him. In support, the reliance was placed on the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 (Raj. HC) 2. CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not anything to be considered at that stage. The "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, he can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion and what is required is "reason to believe", but not the established fact of escapement of income. At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... immoveable property, she has failed to respond to notice u/s. 133(6) and thus, the assessee has failed to disclose the said transaction and which has thus been made the basis for reopening the assessment proceedings. The fact that there is a return of income already filed by the assessee wherein she has disclosed the said transaction has thus not been considered by the AO while recording the reasons. The assessee may not have responded to notice u/s. 133(6), however, where she has already filed her return of income and wherein the said transaction has been duly disclosed, there cannot be any failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully such transaction. Thus, the very basis for reopening the assessment is basis incomplete fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is relevant to note that the return of income so filed manually is with ITO Ward 6(1) who is the same officer who has subsequently issued the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and therefore, Revenue cannot take the plea that return was filed wrongly by the assessee with another officer not having jurisdiction over the assessee. The related contention of the Revenue that the return so filed manually not uploaded in the IT system therefore cannot be accepted more so in the context of reassessment proceedings and where there is fault on the part of the assessee in filing his return of income. 14. Interestingly, during the course of reassessment proceedings, the ITO in his reassessment order stated clearly in Para 5 that "in the return of incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
