TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited [ 2011 (6) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Jet Airways (I) Limited [ 2010 (4) TMI 431 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 1986, 1987 & 1988/KOL/2016 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2017 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri V.N. Purohit , C.A. For the Respondent : Shri Bani Brata Dutta, JCIT, D.R. ORDER These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against three separate orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 10, Kolkata, all dated 04.07.2016 and since a common issue is involved therein, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by a single consolidated order. 2. The solitary c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain purchases, the genuineness of which was in doubt. He accordingly verified the said purchases and since the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the same, the Assessing Officer treated the said purchases as bogus and made additions to that extent to the total income of the assessee in the assessments completed under section 147/143(3) for all the three years under consideration. 4. Against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3), appeals were preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) for all the three years under consideration challenging the validity of the said assessments as well as disputing the additions made therein on account of bogus purchases on merits. The ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 to be issued for such escapement of income . A.Y. 2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10) 06.09.2013 In the instant case, the assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11 in due time and duly processed u/s 143(1) at ₹ 4,80,163/- on 03.05.2011 by CPC against the return income of ₹ 4,80,160/-. Latter it is found and detected that against the tax identification no. (TIN) 2767002475IV for the F.Y 2009-10 relevant to the AY 2010- 11 the assessee suppress his sale of ₹ 1,56,728/-. In the light of the above, I have reason to believe that there had been escapement of income on receipt 1,56,728/- and suppression of correspondence income arises out that receipts and payment as per provision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer, however, did not make any additions on account of suppressed sales and actually made additions on account of bogus purchases. Although the ld. D.R. has contended that there was a mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer in mentioning the relevant transact ions as suppressed sales instead of bogus purchases, the fact remains to be seen is that the assessments were reopened by the Assessing Officer for the reason that there was suppression of sales by the assessee and there was no addition made to the total income of the assessee on account of such suppression of sales in any of the three years under consideration. The additions finally made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee were on account of bog ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laining the legal position in this regard, Hon ble Delhi High Court observed that if even though Assessing Officer had a jurisdiction to reassess the issues other than the issues in respect of the proceedings were initiated, he was not justified to do so when the reasons for initiation of those proceedings had ceased to survive. 9. In the present case, no additions having been made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee on account of suppression of sales, the very reasons for the initiation of reassessment proceedings had ceased to survive and in my opinion, it was not permissible to the Assessing Officer to make additions to the total income of the assessee in the reassessments on the issue of bogus purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
