Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1934 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed investment - mismatch between gross turn-over declared by assessee vis-avis gross receipt appearing in the bank statement of the assessee - assessee tried to reconcile the statement as observed by AO explaining that certain receipts in the bank statements are showing the money receipt on the realization of mutual fund as well as maturity value of fixed deposit - CIT(A) reversed the order of AO after giving part relief to assessee by observing the fact that the investment in mutual fund / fixed deposit are coming from the earlier year - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) in his appellate order has admitted the fact that AO has not examined both debit and credit side of the bank account. But Ld. CIT(A) has also not commented on all the debit and credit side of the bank statement of the assessee. Also observed by Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order that Assessing Officer failed to put any effort in his assessment order as well at the stage of remand report. But in this case, also we find that Ld. CIT(A) has also not exercised his power to figure out the unaccounted receipt.The requisition made by the Ld. CIT(A) during remand report has not been recorded in the order of Ld. CIT(A). The provision of Section 250(6) of the Act require the commissioner appeal to dispose of the appeal in writing and with reasoning but we find from the appellate order that where he has given relief to assessee merely relying on the submissions made by assessee. We also note that lot of information were submitted by assessee before Authorities Below which has not been duly verified. Therefore we are inclined to restore the matter back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The AO must give reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing order on this point. Accordingly, Revenue’s issue is allowed for statistical purpose. Reopening of assessment - whether CIT(A) erred in not issuing direction to the AO u/s 150(1) to reopen the assessment for those years in which the investment had been made by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the judgment in the case of Murlidhar Bhaghubabu [1964 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] we conclude that Ld. CIT(A) has no power under the provision of law for giving any direction to AO for reopening of assessment. The appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is confined to the particular assessment year which is before him. Thus, in view of the above proposition, we dismiss the ground of Revenue’s appeal. Consequently, Revenue’s ground is dismissed.
|