9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment proceedings which had attained finality, notice under Section 148 predicated on the same ground was impermissible. - In view of the order of the CIT(A) which was even upheld by the Tribunal it was not open to the A.O. to re-open the proceedings under Section 148, on the ground which had been dealt with specifically and decided in favour of the assessee. - It is trite law that even where two views are possible, proceedings under Section 148 cannot initiated - 65/2009 - - - Dated:- 16-11-2009 - CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL Represented by: Mr. N.P. Sahni, for the appellant Mr. Santosh K. Aggarwal for the respondent JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J (ORAL) 1. The respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onale for arriving at such a conclusion, the following intervening facts and events which occurred between the passing of original assessment orders under Section 143(1) and issuance of notice for re-assessment under Section 148 needs a mention. 3. It so happened that the premises of the assessee were searched on. As a result of this search and seizure of certain documents, notice for block assessment under Section 158 BC of the Act was served upon the respondent. Assessment pursuant thereto was made on 31.8.1999. In this assessment order passed under Section 158BC of the Act, one of the items of addition was in fact on account of sale of aforesaid shares treating the same as stock-in-trade instead of investment. The assessee had taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce sheet, there was no justification for withdrawing the exemption U/S 47(IV) allowed to the appellant in course of proceedings. U/s 143(1)(a)/143(3). Appellant gets relief of Rs.381,24,167/-" 4. Thus, categorical finding of fact was arrived at by the CIT(A) that scrips were actually investment and not stock-in-trade and there was no justification for withdrawing the exemption under Section 47(iv). This order was upbeld by ITAT. When we keep the aforesaid order of the CIT(A) in mind, the irrestible conclusion would be that the original assessment could not be reopened under Section 148 of the Act on the same premise, viz., shares were kept by the assessee herein as stock-in-trade and not investment. 5. After going through the reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
