9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 57,80,03,316/- on account of infrastructure funds and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 57,80,03,316/-on account of infrastructure funds, is illegal, bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order without providing the adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147/144B as the same is barred by limitation also. 7. That hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 12.3.2025 and AY 2014-15 in ITA No. 1655/2018 vide order dated 12.3.2025 and therefore, the disallowance made is without any basis, material or evidence and may be deleted and ground no. 3 and 4 may be allowed. Further, he submitted that on jurisdictional issues, assessee will definitely succeed and in support thereof, he filed the following written submissions: "Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 6: These grounds are against the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 and that too without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151A of the Act and the impugned reopening of AY 2015- 16 is bad in law for the following reasons: (1) Original assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 11.12.2017, wherein, inter alia addition was made on account of infrastructure fund which was subject matter of appeal filed by the assessee and therefore in terms of third proviso to section 147, the assessing officer could not have assumed jurisdiction in respect of an issue which is subject matter of appeal and therefore impugned reopening deserves to be quashed on this ground itself. (2) PB 78-83 are detailed objections filed during the assessment proceedings vide letter dated 05.01.2022 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee's own case for AY 2013-14 in ITA No. 920/2024 vide order dated 12.3.2025 and for AY 2014-15 in ITA No. 1655/2018 vide order dated 12.3.2025. We find in assessment year 2014-15, the Tribunal has observed as under:- ".....Ground No. 5 & 6 relates to making addition of Rs. 74,65,69,311/- by holding that the amount earmarked for Infrastructure Fund is taxable income. In the assessment order, the AO has stated as under: "4. Infrastructure Development fund: it was found that an amount of Rs. 74,65,69,311/- was directly credited to infrastructure development fund without being credited to Income and expenditure account hence the amount is added back. (Additions of Rs. 74,65,69,311/-) During the appellate proceedings the AR has filed written submission as under:-The premises on which addition has been made, has been laid down by the Assessing Officer on page 5 of the assessment order and reads as hereunder: "On the Perusal of Income & Expenditure Account read with annexure B out of the total receipts only a fixed portion is credited to Income & Expenditure account the details being as under :- Head of Receipt Credited to Income and Exp. Account Total receipts Short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GO been submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. From the said G.O. and the documents attached thereto, it would be seen that the receipts represent collection made on behalf of the government, for being utilised for the specified purposes. The appellant itself did not have any right, title or interest to such receipts nor it has even the discretion to apply such receipts for attainment of the objects for which ADA had been notified. During the year under consideration, there were credits for sums aggregating Rs. 70,85,91,497.59/- under the head "Infrastructure fund" which the "appellant authority" had taken directly to the Balance Sheet, after transferring from various accounts. The said fund is in the process of being created as per the Government order and the same was liable to be utilized in the manner laid down in the related Government order itself. In other words, it was to be utilized only for the purposes as spelt out and specified by the State Government and the "appellant authority" has merely acted as "nodal agency", having no right, title or interest of its own in the said 'Fund'. It is also relevant to mention here that 'infrastructure fund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
