9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income of Rs. 1,74,630/-, which was assessed at Rs. 6,18,250/- under sect ion 143(3). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice dated 17.03.2010 under section 148 after recording the following reasons:- "In the instant case, a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- advanced by M/s. Assam Co. Ltd., and written off subsequently, should be considered as income for the assessee. The assessee considered the amount as 'sundry creditors' (Trading Liability). But the Assam Co. Ltd. had written off the recoverable amount in their balance sheet as per Companies Act. Hence, this case is applicable for the provision of section 41(1). Therefore, I have reason to believe that Rs. 50 lakhs is escaped assessment since Rs. 50 lakhs is chargeable to income tax as ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfied himself that genuinely income to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs has escaped assessment. Hence, i t is not a case of the change of opinion because of the audit objection only rather it is a case where the AO is fully satisfied that an income has escaped assessment, only after recording his satisfaction, notice u/s 148 has been issued in this case. Therefore, AR's contention that reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 because of audit objection, is not valid. Hence, assessee's appeal in ground no 1 is dismissed". 4. Being aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective grounds of appeal:- "1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Income Tax (Appeal) should have considered the ground for charging of interest u/s.234B and 234D and should have held that interest u/s. 234B being wrongly charged should have been deleted". 5. Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the reopening has been made solely on the basis of change of opinion. In this regard, he referred to page 3 of paper book and pointed out that in the course of original assessment proceedings vide order- sheet dated 22.05.2007 notice under section 133(6) was, inter alia, issued to M/s. Assam Co. Limited in whose account the credit balance of Rs. 50,00,000/- was lying. He further referred to page 1 of the paper book, wherein the reply received from M/s. Assam Co. Limited dated 09.07.2007 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of DCIT & Anr. -vs.- Vikas Sharma reported in (2014) 165 TTJ (Chd.)(UO) 1. 6. Ld. D.R. for the Revenue relied on the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. From the facts narrated by the ld. counsel for the assessee, noted above, which have not been controverted by the ld. D.R., it is noticed that the Assessing officer did not invoke the provision of section 41(1) in the original assessment proceedings after being fully satisfied with the reply filed by the asseessee. Therefore, on the basis of same fact s, without having any fresh tangible material, solely on the basis of audit objection, the invocation of provision of section 147 was not justifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
