TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is department s appeal for assessment year 2002-03, taking the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.20,00,200/- on account of unexplained investment in the purchase of the property. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer had not recorded his own satisfaction as he had neither made specific enquiries nor gathered evidence in the matter and had merely relied on the information received from the Investigation Wing of the department overlooking the fact that Investigation Wing is also an arm of the department conducting enquiries. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thod of valuation of property by DVO faulty and also that the DVO had not given opportunity to the assessee overlooking the fat that DVO had correctly valued the property and the assessee was given many opportunities during assessment proceedings. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee has contended that the reasons for the reopening of the assessment were conveyed to the assessee on 09.10.2009, i.e., beyond six years from the end of the assessment year under consideration (assessment year 2002-03) i.e., 31.3.2003. It has been contended that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Balwant Rai Wadhwa vs. ITO , vide order dated 14.01.2011 (copy placed on record) in I.T.A. No.4806/Del./10, has held that if reasons for the reop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgments are not applicable to the present case; that the reasons recorded were duly supplied to the assessee within a reasonable time period; that besides, the objections raised by the assessee were also disposed of by the Assessing Officer by his speaking order; and that therefore, the objection of the assessee in this regard is not maintainable and it be not entertained. 3. We have heard the parties on this issue. In Balwant Rai Wadhwa vs. ITO (supra), while holding that if the reasons for reopening are not served on the assessee within six years from the end of the concerned assessment year, the reopening is void, the Tribunal placed reliance on Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (supra), wherein it was held that a notice u/s 148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. We are not impressed by the case sought to be set up on behalf of the department. Undeniably, the reasons for reopening the completed assessment of the assessee were supplied to the assessee beyond six years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. In Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (supra), the ratio laid down is that if the reasons are supplied to the assessee beyond a period of six year from the end of the concerned assessment year, the reopening of the completed assessment is void. The department has remained unable to walk out of the said ratio, which holds good squarely in the present case also. Obviously, the Assessing Officer cannot be allowed time ad infinitum to reopen a completed assessment. Such reopenin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
