TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in and tax resident of USA. No return was filed by the assessee on the ground that its income was not taxable in India. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2005 for the following reasons :- A tax evasion petition has been received in the office of DIT(IT), Mumbai which was forwarded to the undersigned on 30.3.2005. On going through the same and the relevant material on record, it is apparent that Black Veatch Prichard, Inc. USA having its address at P.O. Box 27-105, Kansas City, MO 64180-0105, U.S.A. in earning income from India from Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. but is not filing its return of income in India. Accordingly under explanation 2 to section 147 of the I.T.Act, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the name of Reliance Petrochemicals Limited was wrongly mentioned in the reasons recorded by the A.O. as against the correct name of Reliance Petroleum Limited in the Tax evasion petition. 5. The assessee has challenged the reassessment in its cross objection. The learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on account of escapement of certain income earned by the assessee from India in Reliance Petroleum Limited, but no addition was made on that score. Since no addition was made by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 147 on account of the alleged income from India from Reliance Petrochemicals Limited, the learned AR submitted that the entire reassessment order was to be quashed. Per con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice; however if after issuing a notice u/s 148 the A.O. accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, then it is not open to him independently assess some other income. The Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Ram Singh [(2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj.)] has also taken similar view. From the above discussion, it is clear that making of an addition on a subject which formed reasons for notice u/s 148 is sine qua non to further proceed with the matter and making any other additions on account of an income which earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
