TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Beena K. Jain [ 1993 (11) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] being relied upon by the appellant in support of the reopening notice was available at the time when the regular assessment order dated 12th September, 1996 under Section 143 of the Act was passed. Therefore, it would not be fair to presume that the Assessing Officer was ignorant of the decision rendered by this Court. Moreover, as the impugned order of the Tribunal itself records that the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice was merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the audit party. This also makes the impugned notice bad. - no substantial question of law - decided in favour of assessee. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1158 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 2-4-2019 - AK ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent's assessment was taken up for scrutiny assessment. During the course of assessment, detailed letters were filed by the respondent giving complete details of the transactions relating to the purchase and sale of flats in a building known as 'Tanhee Heights' resulting in capital gains. Thus, the same was subject of consideration leading to assessment order dated 12th September, 1996 under Section 143(3) of the Act. 6. On 15th May, 1998 a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 1994-95. The appellant objected to the re-opening of Assessment but the same was not accepted. This resulted in Assessment order dated 22nd February, 2001 passed u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer has recorded the fact that the reopening notice dated 15th May, 1998 has been issued on account of a recent decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s. Smt. Beena K. Jain, [1996] Vol.217 ITR 363 (rendered on 23rd November, 1993). Thus, it is submitted that the reopening notice is valid in law and the appeal deserves to be admitted. 10. We find that, both the CIT(A), as well as, the Tribunal have held that the re-opening notice dated 15th May, 1996 is without jurisdiction. We note that during the regular assessment proceedings leading to the assessment order dated 12th September, 1996 under Section 143(3) of the Act, the respondent - assessee had furnished all information in respect of the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
