9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 912X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year, which means, the reopening was done after 4 years. In the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, this fact is not coming out. AO has not recorded that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts to complete the assessment. On this count also, the reopening is invalid. Accordingly, we quash the notice issued under section 148 - ground raised by the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A. No. 618/Chny/2020 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2022 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri J. Prabhakar, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 21.03.2018 for reopening of assessment and the reasons recorded and communicated by the Assessing Officer vide his letter dated 29.05.2018 to the assessee are extracted as under: During the F.Y. 2010-11, the assessee along with her son Sri. Srikanth Venkineni had entered into a joint venture development agreement with M/s.Vinayagar Promoters and builders, Visakhapatnam to develop and construct flats in the property at No.2, MIG at Gangapur Layout, Visakapattinam. As per the development agreement, both assessee and her son Sri. Srikanth Venkineni received a flat measuring 2485 sq.ft. in the second floor, two car parking, undivided share in the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded, the Assessing Officer has no raised the issue of escapement of income and therefore, the reopening is not valid. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below. 8. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the case was reopened for the following reasons: During the F.Y. 2010-11, the assessee along with her son Sri Srikanth Venkineni had entered into a joint venture development agreement with M/s.Vinayagar Promoters and builders, Visakhapatnam to develop and construct flats in the property at No.2, MIG at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, we hold that the reopening is invalid. 8.2 That apart, the ld. CIT(A) has recorded that the 4 years had already passed from the end of the assessment year, which means, the reopening was done after 4 years. In the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, this fact is not coming out. The Assessing Officer has not recorded that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts to complete the assessment. On this count also, the reopening is invalid. Accordingly, we quash the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and quash the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
