9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the initiation of assessment u/s. 147 vide notice of u/s. 148 of the IT Act was bad-in-law, thereby failing to appreciate that the proceedings were duly initiated after recordings the reasons as per procedure of law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that the reason are arbitrary and wrong whereas the case was reopened because there was huge difference in turnover between the information received and as per return of income of the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that once none of the grounds, recorded in the reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t date of limitation period to reopen the assessment. He has submitted that the assessee was not given any opportunity to file objections against the reopening of the assessment. Since the assessee have been denied the opportunity to contest the reopening, therefore, the reopening of the assessment was bad in law. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that, even otherwise, the reasons recorded did not constitute reliable information to form the belief by the Assessing Officer that income of the assessee for the year under consideration has escaped assessment. He, therefore, has relied upon the impugned order of the CIT(A). 4. We have heard the rival contentions of both the ld. representatives of the parties and gone throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of limitation period, therefore, no opportunity to file objections has been granted to the assessee which violates the principles of natural justice. The another point noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order is that even the Assessing Officer failed to make any addition in respect of aforesaid high turnover. The ld. CIT(A) has, therefore, relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways Limited [(2010) 195 taxman 117 (Bom)] wherein it has been held that if the Assessing Officer fails to make any addition on the basis of reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer gets no jurisdiction to add any other item of income. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
