9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 147/143(3) as Ultravires. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.3,29,228/- where there is wrong deduction claimed by assessee and there is escapement of Income. Moreover, the issue of non deduction of TDS u/s 194H has come up after the nature of Rs. 10,69,280/- was explained by the assessee as commission paid which was not available at the time of original proceedings. 3. That the AO has rightly taken the recourse of section 147/148 to disallow the wrong claim of deduction u/s 80 IA made by the assessee of Rs. 3,29,228/- and to invoke the section 40(a)(ia) on commission amount of Rs. 10,69,280/-. 4. That the assessee was not entitled for dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 14,71,214/-. 4. That the assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s 801A as he was not covered under any of the criterion mentioned for the deduction. 5. That the CIT (A)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,96,343/- stating that benefit shall be available to the assessee as per circular no. 779 of CBDT issued on 14.07.1999. 6. That the AO rightly added back the amount of Rs. 14,71,214/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non deduction of TDS u/s 194H on commission paid. 7. That the appellant craves leave to modify any of the grounds of appeal mentioned above and/or to add any fresh grounds as and when it is required to do so." 2. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easons recorded were provided to the assessee vide letter dated 04.03.2013 and from its careful perusal, we find that the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee. Moreover, the reasons for reopening the assessment relate to the excess claim of deprecation and excess deduction and both the issues were examined by the AO while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that assessment was reopened after four years from the relevant assessment years. 5. We have also carefully perused the judgments referred to by the assessee in the case of Arun Gupta Vs. Union of India (Supra) appearing at page 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee. Moreover, the issue on which assessment was reopened was already discussed by the AO in the original assessment. In the light of these facts, we are of the considered view that the assessment was reopened without the jurisdictional foundation u/s 147 of the Act. Therefore, the notice u/s 148 and subsequent proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed, we accordingly following the aforesaid judgment of the jurisdictional High Court quash the assessment for both the years and delete all the addition made therein. Since, the assessments are quashed we find no justification to adjudicate the issue on meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
