9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessee submitted that the original return filed may be treated as return filed u/s 148. The reason for re-opening was that during the year under consideration, the assessee had sold shares amounting to Rs. 1 crore and the assessee had also received an amount of Rs. 60 lakh as loan from M/s Third Eye Communication Pvt. Ltd. However, the reassessment proceedings were completed at an income of Rs. 21,90,000/- vide order dated 10.06.2005 after making an addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- under the head 'income from other sources' and another addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of expenses alleged to have been incurred over and above the available cash. 2.1 Subsequent to the passing of the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer noted that during the reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee for the assessment year 2002-03, the total equity shares in the companies held by the assessee were examined and based on the declaration of the shares by the assessee, some discrepancy was observed and, therefore, another notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. Thereafter, the reassessment was completed at an income of Rs. 96,99,370/- after making an addition of Rs. 70,77,000/- as deemed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... None was present on behalf of the assessee/respondent when the appeal was called out for hearing. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that this appeal was listed for hearing for the first time on 11.8.2010 and an adjournment was sought by the then Ld. Authorised Representative (AR). Subsequently, the appeal was adjourned on 23.11.2011, 9.10.2012, 12.6.2013 at the request of the then Ld. AR for the assessee. Subsequently, on 21.10.2014, the Ld. AR withdrew his power of attorney and the case was adjourned with the direction to the department to serve the notice on the assessee through its good offices. Thereafter, from 26.3.2015 till today, the case was adjourned on eight occasions and the assessee/respondent was not represented on any occasion. Direction was again given to the department to get the notice served and, vide letter dated 11.07.2017, the DCIT Circle 3(1), New Delhi has informed the Registrar of the ITAT that the notice had been affixed at the address of the assessee as available in the record of the department and a copy of the affixture report was also enclosed along with the letter. However, none is present on behalf of the assessee/respondent even after the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue relating to the shares held by the appellant and had also taken the statement of the broker to which these shares had been purchased, a copy of statement of Sh. Dalip Kumar Singhal was also produced before me wherein it has been mentioned that the books of accounts were produced for verification and the Assessing Officer by considering the matter in depth. Subsequent to this investigation on enquiring the Assessing Officer had accepted the contentions of the assessee and completed the assessment u/s 148/143(3). It is pertinent to note that on the same issue since a detailed enquiry had also been conducted by the Assessing Officer earlier and there was no additional information or fresh facts which could lead the Assessing Officer to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, there does not appear to be valid reason for re-opening the assessment u/s 148 on a second occasion on similar grounds. b) The AR has also strongly argued on the basis of various judicial pronouncements that since the assessee had disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and the Assessing Officer has not brought out any discrepancy for invoking the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Income Tax (A), he has not been able to controvert the finding of fact as recorded by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) by leading any cogent evidence to the contrary. After going through the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), it is very much apparent that the reopening was done on the same issue which had earlier been thoroughly investigated by the Assessing Officer and no adverse inference had been drawn. There is also no fresh material or additional information on record which could lead the Assessing Officer to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Thus, there was no valid reason for reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act on a second occasion on similar ground. A perusal of the second re-assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer has not brought out any facts which would clearly indicate that the assessee had not disclosed full material facts on the earlier occasion. Therefore, on overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the findings of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), which could not be negated before us, we are inclined to agree with the action of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
