TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assesseecompany that the re-assessment proceedings were initiated during the course of pendency of the original assessment is bald without any substance and devoid of any merit and therefore, dismissed as such. From the reasons recorded, it is clear that the AO had information that no return of income has been filed for several assessment years and this fact goes to show that there was no business activity carried on by the assessee-company. Obviously, this information could have enabled the AO to believe that no business was carried on by the assessee-company so as to entitled it to business loss which could be set off against capital gains. In our considered opinion, this information would have enabled the AO to believe that incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... URI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the CIT(A)-III, Bangalore, dated 1/3/2013 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The assessee raised the following the grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, facts, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned authorities below are not justified in determining the income at ₹ 3,36,20,420/- as against the returned income of ₹ 2,26,83,229/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT (A)-III erred in upholding the order of the learned DCIT even when the order passed by the Learned DCI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court decision in 240 ITR 355. 7. The learned authorities below erred in allocating the total sale consideration received on the sale of property between Land and Building without considering the depreciation. The guidance value of the building has been ascertained without considering the depreciation on the building. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change, delete any of the grounds of appeal. 9. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeals may be allowed and justice rendered. 3. Briefly, facts of the case are that the assessee is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground of suspicion and there are no reason to believe that income escaped assessment and the assessment order passed was barred by limitation. The above contention of the assessee-company was rejected by the CIT(A) by passing a reasoned order vide para.5.2 which reads as under: 5.2. I have carefully considered the issue. I find that the AO had duly recorded reasons and these were based on information collected by him in the course of his official duties. As per this information, there was reason to believe that income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 since set off of business losses against income from capital gains for the assessment year 2007-08 had been claimed without filing returns for several previous fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd . (320 ITR 561). 5.2 On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative heavily relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. At the first instance, we shall deal with grounds of appeal challenging the very validity of re-assessment proceedings. The contention of the assessee-company that the re-assessment proceedings were initiated during pendency of the original proceedings cannot be accepted, as the facts emerge from the assessment order, the original return of income was filed on 28/3/2008 and therefore, notice u/s 143(2) should have been issued by 31/3/2009. Obviously, there was no notice is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the assesseecompany that re-assessment proceedings were prompted by mere change of opinion cannot be accepted as in the present case, there was no opinion formed by the AO as the original assessment came to be completed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the assessee on Kelvinator of India Ltd . (supra) is misplaced. 6.2 The contention raised by the assessee-company that the assessment order passed is barred by limitation cannot be accepted as the assessee-company merely raised a bald claim without demonstrating before us as to how it is barred by limitation. Hence, this contention is also rejected. 6.3 In the result, grounds challenging re-assessment proceedings are dismissed. 7. As regards mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
