9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd findings and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. That having regard to facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr.CIT has erred in law and on facts in setting aside the impugned reassessment order dated 16-11- 2018 and directing the assessing officer to examine the issues involved afresh and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice and more particularly when all the details/information/evidences were available on the record at the time of assessment proceedings and assessee has rightly claimed the exemption u/s 54F of Income Tax Act. 3. That having regard to facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr.CIT has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order u/s 263 and that too without providing the opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. Pr.CIT in passing the impugned order u/s 263 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and is in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT has er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... she has done above transaction and purchased RBI bonds and done time deposits. During verification it was noticed that assessee has taken cost of improvement of Rs. 15,81,658/- and not produced specific evidence regarding this also assessee has not submitted any cogent reply regarding time deposit of Rs. 5.50,000/- held with Union Bank. Thus assessee has failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness of above transaction, meaning thereby above transaction has not been disclosed before the department. Since necessary permission u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has already been accorded by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the income of Rs.1,27,44,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Sec. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." Dated : 16.03.2018" 5. The assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 29/03/2018 responded that the return already filed on 30/03/2013 declaring taxable income of Rs.3,90,290/- may be considered as a return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee furnished various replies together with documentary evidences in response ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see was accepted and no addition was made. This fact has also not been disturbed by the PCIT in his order u/s 263 of the Act. 16. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer could not have made the addition on the issues raised by the PCIT in his order as no addition was made on account of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. 17. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Software Consultants I.T. Appeal No. 914 of 2010 order dated 17.01.2012 21 Taxmann.com 155 was seized with the following question of law: "Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the CIT had wrongly invoked the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act." 18. The Hon'ble High Court, on facts similar to the facts of the appeal under consideration, held as under: "9. One of the contentions, which has been accepted by the tribunal is that the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be regarded as erroneous even if the Assessing Officer had failed to carry out necessary verification and required enquiries in respect of the share application money, as no addition has been made on account of the reasons for reopening, which were recorded before issue of notice under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer, assesses or reassesses any income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for any assessment year, with respect to which he had 'reason to believe' to be so, then only, in addition, he can also put to tax, the other income, chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment, and which has come to his notice subsequently, in the course of proceedings under section 147. To clarify it further, or to put it in other words, in our opinion, if in the course of proceedings under section 147, the Assessing Officer were to come to the conclusion, that any income chargeable to tax, which, according to his 'reason to believe', had escaped assessment for any assessment year, did not escape assessment, then, the mere fact that the Assessing Officer entertained a reason to believe, albeit even a genuine reason to believe, would not continue to vest him with the jurisdiction, to subject to tax, any other income, chargeable to tax, which the Assessing Officer may find to have escaped assessment, and which may come to his notice subsequently, in the course of proceedings under section 147." 12. The Division Bench in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra)considered the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der sections 80HH and 80-I as claimed by the assessee to be not admissible. He consequently while not making additions on those items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., proceeded to make deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I and accordingly reduced the claim on these accounts. 20. The very basis of initiation of proceedings for which reasons to believe were recorded were income escaping assessment in respect of items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., but the same having not been done, the Assessing Officer proceeded to reduce the claim of deduction under sections 80HH and 80- I which as per our discussion was not permissible. Had the Assessing Officer proceeded to make disallowance in respect of the items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., then in view of our discussion as above, he would have been justified as per Explanation 3 to reduce the claim of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I as well." 13. On the second aspect raised by the Commissioner of Income Tax with regard to the Assessing Officer accepting the loss return of Rs.1,02,756/-, we are of the view that the same did not require exercise of revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act. The obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
