9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 148 of the Act was issued on 8.1.2001 which was served upon the assessee on 11.1.2001. In respect thereto, the assessee filed a return of income on 28.2.2001 declaring the same income as shown in the original return and this return was also processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 30.3.2001 accepting the returned income. Thereafter, notices were issued under Section 143 (2) and Section 142(1) of the Act and the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was completed on 14.2.2003 on a total income of Rs.17,01,235. Various additions and disallowances were made in this assessment. 2. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and besides contesting the disallowances made in the assessment, took up a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide impugned order dated 6.7.2005 held that the view taken by the CIT(A) that the assessment ought to have been completed on or before 31.3.2002 is correct in law and thus, dismissed the appeal. 5. It is relevant to mention at this stage that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment proceedings again by serving a fresh notice under Section 148 of the Act on 24.3.2004. Reasons for reopening the assessment by the Assessing Officer are reproduced hereinafter:- Smt. Anchi Devi Jindal C/o M/s Viklas WSP Ltd. Siwani Assessment year 1998-99 Reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment: From the perusal of the assessment records, the assessment was completed under section 143(3)/ 147 on 14.2.2003 on a total income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escaped assessment. 6. In response to this notice, the assessee declared the same income as declared in the original return. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had received interest of Rs.16,79,717/- against which interest of Rs.16,54,794/- had been claimed as deduction as paid to the bank. 7. The Assessing Officer held that interest paid was not allowable as deduction as the income from investment out of the loan was not taxable. He also held that the loans taken were for investment in the FDRs. The interest paid on the borrowings against which the FDRs were pledged, was not wholly and exclusively for earning of interest. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 47 on 14.2.2003 had been quashed by CIT(A) and therefore, this assessment became non-est the effect of which was as if no assessment under Section 143(3) had been made. The reopening, therefore, could be made legally in this case after lapse of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The argument of the ld. A.R. For the assessee and the reopening was bad in law, cannot be therefore, accepted. The reopening is thus held legally valid and the order of CIT(A) is confirmed." 10. Not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the assessee has further come up in appeal before this Court challenging the order dated 22.9.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ITA No.3903/DEL/2005 raising the following substa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer within the period prescribed under the Act as the earlier order of assessment dated 14.2.2003 which was quashed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal on technical grounds will not bar the Assessing Officer from initiating the reassessment proceedings against the assessee. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. In R.Kakkar Glass and Crockery House v. Commissioner of Income-Tax 254 ITR 273, this Court held as under:-"When a notice for reassessment is quashed on some technical ground, it would be in order to issue a fresh notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provided all other legal requirements of law are complied with. For instance, it a notice un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy become time-barred then a subsequent enlargement of time by an amendment of law cannot be availed of. In such a case, the matter having attained finality, would vest a party with substantive right which has already accrued. This accrued right cannot be taken away by a subsequent amendment. Substantive laws determine the rights and liabilities of the parties concerned, whereas procedural laws govern the manner in which such rights or obligations are to be enforced or realised." 16. In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Air Craft Radio Corporation (2007) 292 ITR 64 (P&H) this Court held that after the reassessment had been set aside by the Appellate Court, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to once again embark upon the same proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
