Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1698 - ITAT CHENNAIReopening the assessment u/s 147 - period of limitation - notice having being issued and served beyond the time limit prescribed u/s. 149 - HELD THAT:- Terminology used in Sub Section (1) of Sec. 149 of the Act is ‘’issued’’ and not ‘’served’’. Admittedly, notice was issued on 31.03.2012, which was within the six year period allowed under said section. Hence, in my opinion, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya vs. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] and holding that notice having issued within statutorily allowed time period, the reassessment was valid. Addition sustained by CIT(Appeals) under short term capital gains, though originally done by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s. 69 of the Act, assessee has filed copy of the accounts statement for its investment in Sundaram Bond Saver Inst Bonus (Principal units) as well as Sundaram Bond Saver Inst. Bonus (Bonus Units). There is no dispute that bonus units were issued to the assessee on 23.03.2004. There is also no dispute that ld. Assessing Officer had applied Sec. 94(7) of the Act in the assessment year 2004-2005. Where a financial asset is allocated to a assessee without any payment, on the basis of holding of any other asset, the cost of the former has to be taken as Nil. In such circumstances, cost of the units received as bonus on 23.03.2004 was rightly considered by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as Nil. Since assessee switched out of the said units on 22.09.2004 and received a sum ₹ 49,48,821/-, the said sum was, in my opinion rightly considered as short term capital gains - Decided against assessee
|