9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sced to the jurisdiction. As per CBDT instructions, the burden was on the authority assuming jurisdiction to show and establish that such instructions have been duly complied and satisfied in letter and spirit. Since notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was not in terms of the instructions of the CBDT, both the notice and the assessment framed were held to be without valid jurisdiction and were accordingly, quashed. Since, in the present case, the question of jurisdiction was to be decided first by the Assessing Officer, which has not been done, the assessment order was quashed being against the instructions of the CBDT. After going through the impugned judgment(s), this Court is of the view that the in this case, the instructions issued by the CBDT have not been complied with in letter and spirit. Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal(s) of the assessee by appreciating the facts in the right perspective. - HON BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI AND HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: For the Appellant : Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Senior Standing Counsel. For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Foreign Travelling Expenses of Rs. 9,87,601/- in its P L Account as no evidence regarding the person travelled, sector travelled, parties contracted and business procured was available on record. (9) An addition of Rs. 1,64,890/- was made as no evidence on record regarding the Subscription Membership fees paid to the institution/organizations eligible for deduction under Section 80-G. (10) The assessee-company had claimed total expenses of Rs. 1,97,72,54,772/- under different heads in the P L Account. No details were furnished by the assessee to prove the genuineness of these expenses. Moreover, the expenses under various heads were allowable only when TDS was deducted and deposited in the Government account. Since no information was furnished by the assessee nor any evidence is available on record to substantiate the claim of the assessee as genuine, the expenses of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- not relating to the business were disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Against the said order, the assessee-respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who vide order dated 20.07.2009, deleted the additions mentioned at Sr. Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice as well as assessment made in the case of assessee without adjudicating upon the issues raised by the Revenue as well as the assessee by way of appeals filed before the Hon ble Tribunal? The short question for consideration in the present appeals is, whether as per CBDT instructions/guidelines, the case of the asessee was covered to be picked up for scrutiny, especially keeping in view that for the assessment year 2007-08, the income was 30% more than the total income declared for the past year i.e. 2006-07. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) has referred to the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia, (2004) 270 ITR 572 (AP), whereby it was held that the scrutiny assessment, if it is in violation of the press release by the CBDT, is invalid. While deciding the said case, reference was made to the judgment passed by Hon ble the Supreme Court in UCO Bank vs. CIT (1999) 154 CTR (SC) 88, wherein the scope of circulars issued by the CBDT under Section 119 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was examined. It was held that the CBDT, under the above said provisions, from time to time, could issue such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see and referred the matter to the Departmental valuation cell for ascertaining the cost of the construction. The valuation cell determined the value of the property at Rs. 2,02,15,924/- as against the declared value of Rs. 1,43,74,515/-. The Assessing Officer, after making adjustments to the valuation report, completed the assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act by making an addition of Rs. 55,93,115/- being the difference in the cost of construction declared by the assessee and as determined by the valuation cell. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred by the respondent, which was rejected. After rejection, the appellant-assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the assessee keeping in view the circular issued by way of press release dated 12.03.1996, conditions of which reads as under:- (a) the total income for both the assessment years should exceed the basic exemption limit; (b) the total income for the assessment year 1995-96 should not exceed Rs.5 lakhs; and (c) tax is fully paid for the assessment year 1996-97 before the return is filed. All th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
