9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee for assessment year 2006-07. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 31.10.2006 declaring income of Rs. 1,02,35,913/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessment was completed at Rs. 1,09,52,472/-. Later on, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on 28.03.2008 after recording the following reasons:- "The assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) on 28.2.2008 at an income of Rs. 1,09,52,472/-. On examination the assessee has not shown receipts in Profit & Loss account of Rs. 2,61,84,628/- which appear in the form 16 of the relevant previous year, thereby showing less income. Further on perusal of records it is also seen that the assessee has not deducted any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted that the AO did not make any addition in this respect and, therefore, it was reopening of assessment by changing an earlier opinion which was not permissible in law. The Ld. CIT (A) also took note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 wherein a similar reopening had been set aside. Now, aggrieved, the department is in appeal before the ITAT and has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in holding the reassessment as void ab initio. 3. An adjournment application was received on behalf of the authorised representative when the appeal was called out for hearing which we reject and we proceed to hear the appeal ex parte qua the assessee. 4. Ld. Sr. DR placed extensiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28/- which appeared in Form 16A and further that the assessee had not deducted any tax on payment of Rs. 52,75,27,272/-. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has noted that he has perused the assessment records for the relevant assessment year from which it has emerged that the assessee had duly filed the reconciliation statement with regard to the gross receipts in profit and loss account with Rs. 2,61,84,628/- appearing in Form 16A. The Ld. CIT (A) also referred to note-sheet entries dated 4.3.2008, 12.3.2008 and 26.3.2008 in the assessment records wherein the assessee appeared before the AO and reconciled the difference. With respect to the issue pertaining to non deduction of TDS on payment of Rs. 5,27,52,272/-, The Ld. CIT(A) has noted that he h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns recorded for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were identical and, therefore, the notice issued u/s 147 of the Act for reassessment proceedings was void ab initio and hence the subsequent proceedings u/s 143(3) / 148 of the Act were liable to be annulled. 5.1 After having gone through the impugned order we do not find any reason to differ from the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) as he as examined the issue in detail after going through the assessment records. Ld. Sr. DR also could not point out any factual and legal infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A). We also note that, on identical facts, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in assessee's own case, for Asstt. Year 2007-08, has set aside the reassessment notice as well as the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
