9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al to form a opinion as there was escapement of income and the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act even within four years. The assessee has furnished all particulars at the time of filing of return of income and after examining the details, the return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, which is subjected to 143(3) scrutiny assessment and the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed. Thus we of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has not validly initiated the proceedings under section 147 of the Act and therefore, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 24.03.2014 is quashed. Once the reassessment order passed by the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, thereby there was delay in filing the appeal and therefore, he pleaded that there was no willful delay in filing the appeal and prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. We have perused the records and found that there is sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. The ld. DR did not object to the plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing and adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and deriving income from salary and rental income. He filed his return admitting total income of ₹.59,42,110/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 29.03.2010. Subsequently, the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue particulars of its income at the time of original assessment with reference to the income alleged to have escaped assessment and that the assessment cannot be validly reopened under section 147 of the Act even within four year, merely on the basis of change of opinion, which cannot be sustained under the law. Therefore, he pleaded that the reassessment order passed under section 147 of the Act is bad in law and should be quashed on the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485. Moreover, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561(SC). On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.2010, it is a fact that the assessee has admitted total income at ₹.59,42,110/-. In the original return, the assessee has declared that he owns two residential property one at Chennai and another at Mumbai. After exercising his option under section 23(4)(a) of the Act, the assessee claimed ownership of the property located at Chennai and declared the annual letting out value of the aforesaid property as Nil. With regard to the property located at Mumbai, as per section 23(4)(b) of the Act, the assessee has declared the annual letting out value at ₹.2,40,000/- and claimed a sum of ₹.8,51,524/- being the interest on housing loan, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer and allowed the claim of the assessee in the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat does not mean that the issue has not been considered by the Assessing Officer or that he has not formed an opinion on the issue. Obviously, the Assessing Officer would discuss issues in the assessment order on which there are disputes between the Assessing Officer and the assessee. Where the Assessing Officer accepts the explanation of the assessee normally such issues would not be discussed in the assessment order. The fact that the Assessing Officer has called for the details in the course of original assessment proceedings is not disputed. Once the details are called for and they are submitted it is presumed that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind to the issues for which the details have been called for. The fact that no disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 47 of the Act even within four years. The assessee has furnished all particulars at the time of filing of return of income and after examining the details, the return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, which is subjected to 143(3) scrutiny assessment and the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed. With regard to validity of reopening of assessment, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Usha International Ltd. (supra) wherein, the Hon ble Delhi High Court has held as under: (i) Assessments cannot be validly reopened under section 147 of the Act even within four years, if an assessee had furnished full and true particulars at the time of origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
