TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment framed thereafter is clearly barred by time. The assessment framed is hereby quashed for being time barred - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.18/Ind/2017 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2018 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri B.K. Nema Megha Nema Advs For The Revenue : Shri Rajiv Jain, Sr. DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal, dated 30.11.2016 pertaining to the A.Y. 2001-02. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The notice issued u/s 148 of Income Tax Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law and thus consequent assessment framed there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the finding of the assessing officer. 3. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 are against initiation of proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. 5. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the proceedings so initiated are bad in law and barred by limitation. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the reasons for initiation for proceedings is by virtue of observation made by the Tribunal in IT(SS)A No.532 545/Ind/2013 in the case of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. He submitted that the order was passed on 17.11.2014. He submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal had merely expressed its opinion about taxability of the amount. He submitted that this observation of the Hon'ble Tribunal would not extend the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal rendered in IT(SS)A No. 532 545/Ind/2013 dated 17.11.2014 for the sake of clarity. The relevant observations are reproduced as under: Our attention was also drawn to sum of ₹ 55,000/- which related to duplicate payment. We are not going through this issue, as in our opinion, once the house does not belong to the assessee, there is no evidence found during the course of search that the assessee has invested in the renovation of the house, u/s 69 the onus is on the Revenue to prove that the assessee has made the investment which are not recorded in the books of accounts, if any, maintained by the assessee. The house where the renovation has been carried out does not belong to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the total income of one person must be held to be income of another person. The second ingredient being that before such a finding is recorded, such other person should be given an opportunity of being heard. In the context of the present case, when the Tribunal held in favour of the said society by concluding that the interest income was not taxable in its hands and held against the petitioner by concluding that the said interest income ought to have been taxed in the hands of the petitioner, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner. The fact that such an opportunity was not given, has been recognized by the revenue in the order disposing of the objections dated 20.10.2011, where it has been observed that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no question of granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the specific condition for attracting the deeming provision of Explanation 3 to Section 153 requires that the person ought to be given an opportunity of being heard before an order is passed whereunder any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person. It is not as if the revenue is being faulted or the Tribunal is being faulted for not granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The placing of a blame is not the issue. What is relevant is whether the petitioner had been given an opportunity of hearing before the Tribunal concluded that the interest income was taxable in its hands and not in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
