9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s raised following additional ground of appeal: " On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in reopening assessment u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961." 2. Perusal of record shows that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 09/05/2022, however, the present appeal is filed on 11/10/2022, thus there is a delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee in para 3 of Form No. 36 has mentioned that the order of ld. CIT(A) was communicated on 30/06/2022. On the basis of such date of communication, the Registry of this Tribunal calculated the delay of 43 days in filing appeal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of assessee. 3. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that there is a small delay of 43 days in filing appeal from the date of communication of order of ld. CIT(A). The assessee is a Sanyasi and associated with Shree Swaminarayan Seva Gurukul Trust. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits their office prepared draft of appeal in September, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. 7. The assessee objected against reopening. The objection of assessee was recorded in para 2 of assessment order. In the objection, the assessee objected that case of A.Y. 2009-10 was also reopened on account of cash deposit in excess of Rs. 10.00 lacs in Savings bank account. The Assessing Officer after scrutiny of all the records, was satisfied that savings bank account in which cash in excess of Rs. 10.00 lacs has been deposited belonged to a trust namely Shree Swaminarayan Seva Trust and the Assessing Officer accepted the returned income and granted refund of Rs. 5,030/-. The assessee also stated that on account of reporting of Bank of India as holder of savings bank account, instead of authorised signatory in the savings bank account of Shree Swaminarayan Seva Trust, the reopening process was initiated. The case is reopened for the same reason for the year under consideration. 8. The objection of assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer in para 2.1 of assessment order, recorded that case for A.Y. 2009-10 was reopened on the basis of information relates to cash deposit of Rs. 10.00 lacs whereas for A.Y. 2011-12, the case was reopened on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly. I find that the case was of assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. The assessee filed return of income in response to notice under Section 148 on 07/04/2018. The assessee immediately on filing return of income, requested for supply of reasons recorded. The reasons recorded were supplied to the assessee by the Assessing Officer on 30/05/2018. The assessee immediately filed his objection, objecting the reopening. The grounds of objection are recorded by Assessing Officer in para 2 of assessment order. Though, the Assessing Officer rejected the objection of assessee. The assessee also raised ground against reopening while filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A), thus in my considered view, the facts related to adjudication of additional ground of appeal are clearly emanating from the orders of lower authorities, and no new facts are to be brought on record, therefore, additional ground of appeal raised by assessee is admitted. Now adverting to adjudication of additional ground of appeal as well as original ground of appeal raised by assessee. 13. I have heard the submissions of ld. AR of the assessee and the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. AR of the assesse also furnished copy of screen shot of ITBA portal. 15. To support her various submissions on legal issue as well as on merits, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following case laws: (i) Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon Vs ITO SCA No. 21030 of 2017 (Guj) (ii) Amar Jewellers Ltd. Vs DCIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 4 (Guj) (iii) Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali Vs ITO, Haldwani (2015) 68 SOT 197 (Delhi Trib) (iv) Shri Rinamkumar A Shah Vs ITO ITA No. 172/Ahd/2017. (v) Ashish Natvarlal Vashi Vs ITO ITA No. 3522/Ahd/2016 (Srt Trib) dated 19/04/2021. (vi) Hasmukh B Patel Vs ITO ITA No. 193/Srt/2019 dated 24/07/2019. (vii) Jayesh G. Balar Vs ITO 71 taxmann.com 221 (Guj) 16. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information of term deposit which is different than the information in earlier years. The assessee has not given all the details or information despite giving ample opportunity and the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act. Even before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has not filed any other or additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
