9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laring total income at Rs. 2,15,568/-. The case was initially selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 13-02-2006 accepting the total income declared by the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has noted that the Investigation wing, Mumbai during the course of search action u/s. 132 of the Act on the several stock brokers in the month of January, 2006 noted that they were engaged in arranging bogus purchases and sale of shares and resultant gains were claimed as exempt Long Term Capital Gain or liable for lower tax rate of 10%. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had shown Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 6,63,649/- which was claimed exempt and assessee had also claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not. declaring the Proceeding initiated u/s 147/148 itself are without jurisdiction and bad in law (as transaction of Purchase and Sale of Shares (Penny Stock) were verified by Assessing Officer during Original Assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) for Assessment Year 2003-04 and Purchase of Shares appearing in Balance sheet for AY 2002-03 of which assessment was under search proceedings.) 4. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,63,649/- as Income from Other Sources as against Long Term Capital Gain as offered by Assessee. Appellant prays to confirm the same as Long Term Capital Gain. 5. Appellant prays for just and equitable relief. 6. Observations of CIT(A) in Para 7.6 may please be held perverse. 7. CIT(A) has erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of CIT Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 66 (Bom) and in the case of CIT Vs. Trend Electronics [2015] 379 ITR 456 (Bom) and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. IDBI Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No. 494 of 2014, dated 19-09-2016 submitted that the High Court in the aforesaid decisions have held that failure to furnish the recorded reasons for issue of reopening would make the reassessment order passed to be bad in law. He therefore, submitted that the order of Assessing Officer be set aside. 4. The ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of Assessing Officer and CIT(A). 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present ground the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to object to the same before the AO. It has further held that the recording of reasons and furnishing of the same has to be strictly complied with as it is a jurisdictional issue and in the absence of reasons being furnished when sought for would make an order passed on reassessment bad in law. 7. Before me, Revenue has not placed any contrary binding decision in its support. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts and relying on the decisions cited herein above, I hold the reassessment order passed by the AO to be bad in law and thus set it aside. Since I have set aside the re-assessment order, the grounds raised on merits requires no adjudication as they have been rendered academic. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
