9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would review of the order which is impermissible. The case law of Kelvinator of India Ltd. [ 2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] support the case of the assessee wherein it was held that in the absence of any new tangible material, the case could not be reopened on mere change of opinion. Reasons must have a live link with formation of belief. Thus we would hold that the reassessment proceedings were nothing but the review exercise undertaken by Ld. AO which is impermissible. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and hence, liable to be quashed. Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2785/Chny/2018 - - - Dated:- 23-6-2023 - HON BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o appreciate that there was no reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, since the credits in M/s. Jaya Printers and Dr. Namadhu MGR had been considered in the assessment u/s.143(3) and hence the reopening is untenable in law. 5. The CIT(A) ought to have duly considered a catena of judicial decisions holding the assessment u/s. 147 as invalid, where there was no fresh material or where there was no failure of the assessee to disclose material facts and thus annulled the reopening of assessment. MERITS:- 6. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,40,000, being the credits in the books of M/s Jaya Printers. 7. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire credits are duly reflected in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent charges collected and offered as income in the assessment year 2008-09 and lncome tax was also paid on that amount (Rs.94,12,899/-), hence the addition u/s.68 needs to be deleted. 14. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the bonafide of receipt is evident from the fact that Rs.20,84,799 was received by cheques and so confirming the addition merely on conjectures and surmises is unjustified and warranted. 15. The CIT(A), in any view of the matter ought to have duly considered contentions of the assessee in the proper perspective deleted additions and allowed the appeal. As is evident, the assessee assails the validity of reassessment proceedings. The issues on merits are (i) Addition of unexplained credit of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he root of the assessment and contest very validity of reassessment proceedings, we take up the same first. We find that the original return of income was already scrutinized u/s 143(3). The case was reopened within 4 years. Accordingly, Explanation-1 to Sec.147 as referred to by Ld. AO would not apply in such a case. The perusal of assessment order would show that Ld. AO has not referred to any tangible material coming into his possession which would lead to formation of a belief that certain income escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. Apparently, reassessment has been initiated on the same set of material as available before Ld. AO during the course of original assessment proceedings. This being so, the reassessment proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
