Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 161 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s 68 - bogus loan creditworthiness of creditors was not proved - DR argued that the assessee’s instant application under Rule 27 is not maintainable since the CIT(A) has nowhere “decided” the reopening issue against him - HELD THAT:- We find that hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Peter Vaz [2021 (4) TMI 605 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has already rejected Revenue’s identical pleas in para 38 thereof. We accordingly admit assessee’s foregoing Rule 27 petition. Validity of the impugned reopening - A perusal of the Assessing Officer’s reassessment herein suggest that he had initiated section 148/147 proceedings regarding the assessee’s time deposits, cash deposit in bank accounts and interest income having figures respectively totaling to Rs.1,58,56,948 whereas he ended up in adding section 68 unexplained cash credits in the nature of unsecured loans/ land advances amounting to Rs.2,64,31,847/- only. The CIT(A) which has partly reversed the impugned additions in his lower appellate discussion. It is in view of forgoing admitted factual position that we hold that the Assessing Officer had not made any addition pertaining to his three folded reasons of reopening. That being the case, we quote CIT Vs. Jet Airways India Ltd. [2010 (4) TMI 431 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] holding that such a reopening is not sustainable in law - Decided against revenue.
|