9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was a mistake of mentioning the correct assessment year while deducting the TDS and therefore, the tax deducted at sources by the assessee did not get displayed on the TIN system which was got rectified later on and the TDS deducted appeared correctly in the TIN system of the assessee. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that reopening has been made without satisfying the conditions as envisaged in the 1st Proviso to section 147. Even on merits, the assessee has fool proof case. In our opinion that no meaningful purpose would be served except wastage of time and resources. Accordingly we set aside the order of the CIT(A) by holding that the reopening has not been validly made and the reassessment proceedings and cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an assessment has been framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, no action shall be done only under this Act after expiry of four year from the end of relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for assessment of income in that assessment year. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessment was already framed in this case u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 27.11.2009 assessing a total income of ₹ 7,07,34,340/- and therefore to reopen the assessment without following the provisions as provided in the 1st Proviso to section 147 of the Act would render the reassessment without jurisdiction. The Ld. A.R. submitted that or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessment year, the same was not displayed in TIN System. The Ld. DR submitted that since the mistake has been rectified and corrected challan has been placed on record, the same may be referred back to the file of Assessing Officer for necessary verification and the Assessing Officer may allow the claim of the assessee after verification of the corrected challans. 4. After hearing the rival submissions and pursued the relevant records. We find in this case, the reopening was made after period of four years on the end of relevant assessment year. The assessment u/s. 143(3) was framed vide order dated 27.02.2015 and therefore, we find merit in the pleadings of the Ld. A.R. that reopening has to be made in terms of stipulation of 1s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
