Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (11) TMI 1387

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The fact that emerges from the discussion above, it is clear that a sum was sought to be added to the income of the petitioner as deemed income vide Assessment order dated 29.12.2017. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the same before the CIT (Appeals) who by an order dated 08.09.2022 had rejected the petitioner's Appeal. The Tribunal has now reversed the decision of the Commissioner's Appeal dated 08.09.2022 affirming the Assessment order dated 29.12.2017. The attempt of the Department is to merely includes an additional amount over and above a sum which was the subject matter of the earlier Assessment order which stands deleted. In the light of the above development and in the light of the fact that the Appeal itself has bee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le to be quashed. 6. Specifically, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that out of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 7,19,44,048/-, a sum of Rs. 2,75,00,000/- was directly paid by the petitioner's mother Mrs.Padma, out of proceeds from the sale of her shares in City Union Bank for a sum of Rs. 3,69,84,352.96/-. 7. As far as the 50% share in the property purchased under the aforesaid Sale Deed and Construction Agreement both dated 30.06.2014, the balance amount was paid by the petitioner through loans from M/s.Integrated Enterprises (India) Private Limited in which the petitioner held 29% share. 8. It is submitted that the amount was also re-paid in the same year of its receipt. It is further submitted that the assessment that was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Act as it stood immediately prior to 01.04.2021 is not available to the respondents. 13. That apart, it is submitted that the Assessing Officer had himself quantified the amount of Rs. 7,19,44,048/- in the aforesaid Assessment Order dated 29.12.2017 wherein a part of the amount was during the Financial Year covered by 2014-2015 (Assessment Year 2015-2016) and part of the amount was during the Financial Year covered by 2015-2016 (Assessment Year 2016-2017) as detailed below:- Date Amount (In Rs. ) 16.01.2014 25,00,000 28.06.2014 40,000 25,40,000 27.06.2014 2,75,00,000 27.06.2014 26,27,664 09.10.2014 56,81,184 31.10.2014 52,47,200 28.11.2014 52,47,200 17.12.2014 52,47,200 19.01.2015 52,47,200 19.03.2015 52,47,200 6,20,44,848 29.05.2015 5 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mbers: a) Account Number ending with 30654 b) Account Number ending with 386862 c) Account Number ending with 387177 19. The aforesaid accounts were in the name of the petitioner's mother , petitioner's wife and the petitioner . 20. On the other hand, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that for the purpose of determining the amount which has escaped assessment for reopening of the assessment that was completed on 29.12.2017 would be relevant and therefore merely because the payments were made during the two Assessment Years that was one preceding and one thereafter is of no significance. 21. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents further submits that the order passed by the Income T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assess such escaped income. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, necessary approval is requested from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chennai to assess such escaped income. 24. Thus, the question that arises for consideration is whether there was any tangible material that was available for reopening the assessment that was completed on 29.12.2017. 25. The fact that emerges from the discussion above, it is clear that a sum of Rs. 3,10,22,424/- was sought to be added to the income of the petitioner as deemed income vide Assessment order dated 29.12.2017. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the same before the CIT (Appeals) who by an order dated 08.0 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates