9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act". 2. We notice at the outset that the assessee's first appeal ITA No.2771/Ahd/2014 raises the following substantive grounds: "The learned CIT(A) -XX, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in- 1. Confirming the action of the AO in invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act for the reasons as specified in the satisfaction note. 2. Confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the claim of expenses of Rs. 2,34,145/- from incentive bonus received from Life Insurance Corporation of India. 3. Confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the claim of the conveyance allowance of Rs. 40,620/- under the relevant provisions of the Act, received from Life Insurance Cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessarily and exclusively for the performance of duties. The claim of Rs. 40620/- on account of conveyance allowance is also impermissible. Considering the above I have reason to believe that the claim of the assessee on of Incentive bonus of Rs. 234145/-and conveyance allowance of Rs. 40620/- is wrong and impermissible. As such there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for AY 2006-07, as a result of which income of Rs. 274765/-is chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income of Rs, 274765/- is chargeable to tax as escaped assessment and the case is fit for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in their lordships' latter decision in Tax Appeal No. 1005/2005 CIT vs. Nitinbhai T. Bhupatani decided on 08.02.2006. He therefore pleads that the Assessing Officer has committed a grave illegality in relying upon hon'ble M. P. high court's judgment in CIT vs. Gurudeo Singh Jaggi 267 ITR 763 taking a contrary view as upheld in hon'ble apex court in Special Leave Petition (supra). Mr. Popat contends that mere dismissal of Special Leave Petition against a non-jurisdictional high court's decision does not form a valid precedent. More so when hon'ble jurisdictional high court's latter judgment hereinabove considers the same in deciding the very issue against the Revenue (supra). We find no reason to agree with this legal plea. Hon'ble apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceed further to notice that hon'ble jurisdictional high court's two decisions go contrary to hon'ble Madhya Pradesh high court's judgment as well as similar other precedents. The Revenue vehemently contends that hon'ble apex court's decision (supra) makes it very clear that hon'ble jurisdictional high court's judgment in case of Kiranbhai H Shelat (supra) is wrong. There is no dispute about this factual position. It however emerges that hon'ble jurisdictional high court's latter decision in Nithinbhai's case (supra) takes due note thereof in allowing assessee's identical claim once again at page 4. We thus assume that their lordships have very well considered hon'ble apex court's decision before arriving at the very conclusion in assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
