Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 985 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTReopening of assessment - whether Tribunal erred in quashing the proceedings u/s 147 ignoring the fact that the reassessment was made by the Assessing Officer under Section 150 where a reassessment is required to be made in pursuance of a direction by the CIT(A)? - Held that:- The reasons as recorded in support of the reopening notice dated 10 February 2003 merely states that loans were taken by some companies but that does not indicate in what manner those loans would be hit by the provisions of deemed dividend. The reasons must indicate live link between the material and the belief. (see ITO Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] and CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ]). The material here is that the respondent assessee has received a loan from three private limited companies but that by itself does not make it deemed dividend leading to reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Moreover, we also notice that the Assessing Officer in issuing the notice dated 7 March 2000 has acted at the directions of the CIT(A). This seems to be an admitted position. This is more than evident from Question 1 as formulated by the revenue hereinabove which states that the assessing officer was required to carryout the reassessment in view of the Section 150 of the Act i.e. in pursuance of the direction by the CIT(A). This itself an indication of the assessing officer acting as per the direction of the CIT(A) in issuing the impugned notice. Whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the proceedings u/s 147 without considering that the return had been merely processed u/s 143(1)(a) ? - Held that:- It is a settled position in law that even though the assessment has been processed under Section 143 (1)(a) of the Act for the purposes of reopening of assessment, the condition stipulated for invoking jurisdiction under Section 147/148 of the Act has to be satisfied. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the present appeal as the Tribunal by the impugned order has correctly held that the notice for reopening dated 10 February 2003 was without jurisdiction. No reason to entertain the present appeal as the Tribunal by the impugned order has correctly held that the notice for reopening dated 10 February 2003 was without jurisdiction. - Decided against revenue.
|