Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16 (1) , New Delhi Versus M/s Tarun International Ltd.,

2016 (1) TMI 1071 - ITAT DELHI

Validity of reopening of assessment - non taking permission from the Joint/Additional Commissioner in terms of Section 151(2) - Held that:- In the present case, admittedly the AO was not sure as to whether scrutiny assessment was passed in this case or not which is clear from his report furnished to the ld. CIT(A) for obtaining his permission/sanction. The ld. CIT(A) on perusing the record found that no order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed in the assessee’s case for the year under consideratio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the impugned order, accordingly do not see any merit in this appeal of the department. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA Nos. 5136/Del/2012 - Dated:- 5-11-2015 - Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena A. Pillai, JM For The Assessee : Sh. Amit Goel, CA For The Revenue : Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 23.07.2012 of CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi. 2. The only grounds raised in this appeal reads as under: On the facts and in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed to as the Act) on 26.02.2005 at an income of ₹ 25,42,690/-. Later on, the case was reopened after recording the following reasons: In this return was filed on dated 01.11.2004 at return income of ₹ 25,42,694/-, the same was processed on 26.02.2006. It has come to the notice that certain investigation were carried out by the Directorate of Investigation, New Delhi in respect of the bogus accommodation entries provided by certain individual/companies. The name of the assessee i.e. M .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

& Branch from which entry given A/c Number of entry giving A/c M/s Tarun International Ltd. - 10,01,000 3508 12.03.2004 SBBJ NRR 24360 M/s Tarun International Ltd. - 10,01,000 3530 12.03.2004 SBBJ NRR 24360 M/s Tarun International Ltd. - 10,01,015 24704 12.03.2004 SBBJ NRR 24360 The said amount has been credited into assessee s bank account. Investment made by the investigation wing, New Delhi has found that the assessee is a beneficiary of taking aforesaid accommodation entries. I have also .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssued beyond four years and the permission before issuing the notice was not obtained from the prescribed/competent authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs SPL s Siddhartha Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 223. 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee quashed the assessment by observing at page nos. 6 to 8 of the impugned order as under: I have called for the record and verified. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

spect of which it is proposed to issue Notice u/s 148 : 2004-05 6. The quantum of income which has escaped Assessment : ₹ 60,00,000/- 7. Whether the provisions of Sec. 147 are applicable : Yes 8. Whether the Assessment is proposed to be made for first time. : Not known as the record is not readily available ……………………….. Dated: 25.03.2011 Sd/- xx xx (Jeetender Kumar) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), New Delhi 12. Whe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o issue of notice u/s 148 on 30.03.3011. The return was only processed u/s 143(1) on 26.02.2005 as seen from the record. Hence, since notice was issued beyond 4 years from the end of asst. year, the AO should have obtained the permission of Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of Section 151. In this case, the permission was obtained from Commissioner of Income Tax in contravention to the provisions of Section 151 of the Act. The main contention of the AR, in such a case, is that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fit case for the issue of such notice: Provided that, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (2) In a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of joint Com .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

shall be done in that manner alone and the court would not expect its being done in some other manner, Section 116 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, defines the Income-tax authorities as different and distinct authorities. Such different and distinct authorities have to exercise their powers in accordance with law as per the power given to them in specified circumstances. If a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion, he has to exer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

x. This was not an irregularity curable under section 292B. The notice was not valid. The AO had obtained the permission of CIT as seen from the record. The AO, admittedly, was not sure as to whether a scrutiny assessment was passed in this case or not as seen from the report sent to the CIT for his permission/sanction. As seen from the record there is no order u/s 143(3) in the appellant s case for the impugned assessment year. After careful consideration of the facts and decision of jurisdicti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in individual/companies. Therefore, the AO rightly made the addition and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the same. 7. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the impugned order and reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: CIT Vs SPL s Siddhartha Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Del) DSJ Communication Ltd. Vs DCIT (2014) 222 Taxman 129 (Bom) Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom) Sunint In .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was not sure as to whether scrutiny assessment was passed in this case or not which is clear from his report furnished to the ld. CIT(A) for obtaining his permission/sanction. The ld. CIT(A) on perusing the record found that no order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed in the assessee s case for the year under consideration and thereafter, he quashed the assessment by following the judgment of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs SPL s Siddhartha Ltd. (supra) wherein it has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version