TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SH. G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. Ashish Goel, CA For The Revenue : Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT(DR) ORDER PER BENCH: Both these appeals have been preferred by the assessee. ITA No. 5217/Del/2013 is preferred against the order dated 16.07.2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-III, New Delhi for assessment year 2004-05 and ITA No. 5218/Del/2013 is assessee s appeal against order dated 15.07.2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-III, New Delhi and pertains to assessment year 2003-04. Since both the appeals involved identical issues, they were heard together and they are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. ITAT Delhi Bench in ITA No. 2676/Del/2010, vide order dated 08.08.2013, restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for de novo re-adjudication of the appeal. 2.3 Meanwhile, during the pendency of department s appeal before the ITAT, the department initiated re-assessment proceedings against the assessee and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee on 30.03.2010 and the re-assessment proceedings were completed vide order dated 03.12.2010 wherein the AO again made the addition of ₹ 12,00,000/- u/s 68 on account of loan received from M/s K.V.F. Securities Pvt. Ltd. and interest thereon amounting to ₹ 15,534/-. 2.4 Aggrieved by the re-assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, the assessee fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred in law and facts of the case in confirming the addition of ₹ 12,00,000/- made by the AO by treating unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit u/s 68, which is arbitrary, baseless, unjustified and uncalled for. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of expense of ₹ 15,534/- made by the AO by rejecting the claim of interest expenses paid on unsecured loan, which is baseless, unjustified and uncalled for. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were bad in law and are liable to be quashed as at the time of passing the reassessment order the earlier proceedings u/s 153A of the Act, which were rest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors P.Ltd, the Revenue further submits as under: 1. On merits the Revenue has made written submission, in para 6 to 8 of the written submissions filed on 08.03.2018, and also relied upon the decision dated 08.01.2018 of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Surya Financial Services Ltd., referred to in para 3 of the submission dated 08.03.2018. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the ground No. l of the assessee is against the reopening and in the written submission (Synopsis) Filed by the assessee, on page 4 and 5, the assessee has argued that parallel proceedings u/s 153A and 148 are not permitted. The Revenue has been making the same contention in several other appeals that since the parallel proceedings u/s 153A/ 153C and u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including the cases before the Hon ble Delhi High Court and the Apex Court the above issue was raised or addressed, as specifically mentioned in the order in the case of Parag Dalmia (supra). 6. It needs to be mentioned that corresponding additions related to accommodation entries, detected on the basis of information regarding accommodation entry received from the Investigation Wing, the CIT(A) had deleted the addition in respect of appeal against the order u/s 153A on the ground that no evidence was found during the search. The Hon ble ITAT in assessee s own case reversed the said findings and held in no uncertain term in para 9 that pending proceeding u/s 153A, the AO is not empowered to issue notice u/s 147/148 and therefore rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o perused the written submissions submitted by the Ld. CIT DR in this regard. The facts in this case are undisputed. It is undisputed that the proceedings initiated u/s 153A of the Act were still pending for adjudication before the Ld. CIT (A) when the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. It is also undisputed that the same issue of addition of ₹ 12,00,000/-, being loan received from M/s. K.V.F. Securities Pvt. Ltd., was the subject matter of 153A proceedings as well as 148 proceedings. It is a settled law that there cannot be two parallel proceedings on a similar subject matter and proceedings initiated first must come to an end for making way for initiation of another proceedings on the same subject matter. In the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
