9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in filing the appeal before him. 3. In course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that as noted by the CIT (A) in Para 2, page 3 of his order, the assessee has submitted the explanation about delay in filing of appeal before him. It was pointed out that it was submitted by the assessee that it was under bonafide belief that the appeal filed in respect of the earlier assessment order dated 23.06.2008 u/s 147 rws 143 (3) before CIT (A) Delhi would be applicable even to order passed u/s 153C on 29.12.2009 but when another order u/s 147 rws 143 (3) was passed on 11.03.2013, for the same assessment year, the AR of the assessee who was filing an appeal against the said order passed in 2013 advised the assessee that an appeal be filed against the order passed u/s 153C rws 143 (3) on 29.12.2009 and thereafter the appeal was filed before CIT (A) on 08.11.2013 with a request to condone delay of 282 days. He submitted that this is the finding of CIT (A) that the delay is of 1708 days and he did not condone the delay. He submitted that even this delay of 178 days should be condoned in the interest of justice and he placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble apex cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make no comment on merit. 6. In the result, this appeal in ITA No. 1492/Bang/2014 is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Now, we take up the second appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has raised as many as 10 grounds but the only effective grievance is this that the impugned order passed by the learned PCIT is without jurisdiction. 8. Various arguments were made by the learned AR of the assessee but his main argument was this that the impugned order passed by PCIT u/s 263 is without jurisdiction because the subject matter of revision was already in appeal before CIT (A). In this regard, it was submitted that it is noted by PCIT in Para 9 of the impugned order that notice u/s 263 was issued on 19.09.2014 and in Para 8, it is noted that the AO had not considered the issue regarding accommodation entries of Rs. 65 Lacs provided by Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta. He submitted that on pages 47 to 49 of the paper book is the copy of request for approval u/s 151 dated 28.03.2012 for reopening the assessment u/s 147 and this is for alleged accommodation entries of Rs. 65 Lacs from Sri Aseem Kumar Gupta as noted on page 47. Copy of reasons recorded by the AO for reopening on 28.03.2012 is ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT (A) on 19.03.2013 in Appeal No. 171/CIT (A) - 7/2014 - 15 and this appeal was pending before CIT (A) when notice u/s 263 was issued by PCIT as on 23.09.2014, copy available on page 67 of the paper book because the order of CIT (A) is dated 04.10.2019. We reproduce paras 5.4 to 5.7 of this order of CIT (A) to examine this aspect as to whether this issue in respect of the alleged accommodation entry of Rs. 65 lacs from Sri Aseem Kumar Gupta was under his consideration or not. These paras are as under: - "5.4 The appellant has submitted as regards reasons recorded by the DCIT, Bellary as under: "It can be seen from the recorded reasons that the learned assessing officer states that as per the intimation received from ITO, Ward 9(1), New Delhi, M/s. SLR Steels Ltd now known as M/s. V.S.L. Steels Ltd has taken accommodation entries of Rs. 65 lakh from Mr. Aseem Kumar Gupta. The learned assessing officer goes on further to say that he has reasons to believe that on account of the said accommodation entries income of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 65 lakh has escaped assessment. But as is seen from the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, only two entries are considered instead of three. Accordingly, the amount to be considered for examination is restricted to Rs. 10 lakhs instead of Rs. 15 lakhs." Thus, the AO has proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 10 lakhs as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 5.6 Thus, it is observed that though the AO, DCIT, Bellary before issue of notice u/s 148 has recorded reason of escapement of income of Rs. 65 lakhs being .accommodation entries received by the assessee from Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta, the same has neither been discussed nor considered in the assessment order passed 141(3) r.w.s. 147 on 11-03-2011. It is observed that it is a settled position of law that if reopening is sustainable on one issue the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 in respect of the entire assessment is valid in law. But in this case assessment order has been passed without even any reference to the grounds recorded for reopening by the AO (DCIT, Bellary). In fact, as mentioned already, the assessment has been based on the reason recorded by the ITO, Ward-7(4), Ness Delhi which cannot be considered as a valid reason since the ITO, Ward-7(4). New Delhi had no jurisdiction over the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
