Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (4) TMI 913

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the assessee. The learned authorised representative for the assessee has submitted that since the assessee was challenging the reopening of assessment itself being barred by time, then, due to misunderstanding and misinformation, the assessee could not file the appeal against the impugned revision order. He has further contended that the assessee was thereafter advised to file an appeal against the impugned revision order and therefore the present appeal was filed. The delay was due to some misunderstanding and bona fide mistake and it was neither wanton nor intentional. He has further contended that the assessee initially received a detailed questionnaire from the Assessing Officer and thereafter the assessee filed a petition under sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The reassessment was completed vide order dated June 28, 2007. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income-tax proposed to revise the order on three points, viz., (i) that the Assessing Officer had not verified the unaccounted investment in construction of Dharumaya complex as admitted by the assessee during a survey under section 133A on January 2, 2002 ; (ii) the assessee had shown business income from the plying of bus, which is extremely low in comparison to similar cases ; (iii)the Assessing Officer had not examined the claim of agricultural income of the assessee of Rs. 40,000. The assessee objected to the proposed revision of the Commissioner of Income-tax. However, the Commissioner of Income-t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Assessing Officer wherein the cost of construction was recorded at Rs.30,86,400, whereas the assessee admitted the cost of construction in his books of account at Rs. 31 lakhs and half of the assessee's share in this sum is Rs. 15,50,000, which was duly considered by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. Once the entire cost of construction has been taken into account for the subsequent two assessment years, no addition can be made on account of cost of construction for the assessment year 1999-2000. The income has already been assessed in the subsequent assessment years. Therefore, there is no loss to the Revenue. Similarly, as regards the agricultural income, when the land holding of the assessee has not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... then, the same is an erroneous order so as to be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He has also relied upon the order of this Tribunal in the case of South India Travels P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT dated January 13, 2009 in I.T. A. No. 624/Mds/2008. The learned Departmental representative has further contended that since the assessee admitted to pay the tax of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of investment in construction of the complex vide its letter dated January 3, 2002, coupled with his statement during the survey in which he has admitted that the construction was started in the year 1998, the assessee despite his admission of the unaccounted investment in the construction of Dharumaya complex has not offered the said income for the assessme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1995-96 and 1996-97. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has consciously reopened the assessment only on the point and not touched the issues, which are the subject-matter of the revision order. Once these issues were examined in the subsequent years in the scrutiny assessments and accepted by the Revenue, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind while passing the reassessment order for the assessment year 1999-2000. Moreover, the survey was conducted in 2002 much prior to the reopening of assessment. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has deliberately not reopened the assessment on the issues which are the subject-matter of the revision order because the same were duly examined and adjudicated in the subsequent as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates