TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y verifying the information furnished by the assessee, the assessment was completed by an order u/s 143(3) dated 23.05.2011, thus the source of credit was explained by the assessee in the original assessment. There is no failure on the part of the assessee and no fresh information was received by the AO for reopening the assessment. The information was already made available in the assessment, hence, reopening the assessment on the same issue which was already considered by the AO and taken a view amounts to difference of opinion and on difference of opinion, reopening of assessment is not permissible. We have called for the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. After giving couple of opportunities, the Ld.DR submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,510/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act by order dated 23.05.2011 on total income of ₹ 2,49,910/- apart from agricultural income of ₹ 1,59,600/- Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 for escapement of income in respect of the gifts received by the assessee from HUF. The AO called for explanation as to why the gifts received from HUF should not be brought to tax u/s 56(2)(vi) of the Act. The assessee objected for proposed addition stating that section 56 has no application to the transaction for withdrawals made from HUF. The assessee being member in HUF, argued that the assessee is permitted to withdraw amounts from HUF, the same should neith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neal ascendant or descendents, hence, viewed that the gifts received by the assessee from the HUF needs to be interpreted as the gift from the relatives and thus held that the same is not taxable u/s 56(2)(vi) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the department filed the appeal and raised the following grounds : 1) The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The Ld.CIT(A) is erred in interpreting the term 'relative' to include HUF when Explanation to sec.56(2)(vi) which defines the term 'relative' did not include HUF. 3) As the definition of 'relative' containe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, requested to take up the legal ground, i.e. validity of reopening of assessment. The Ld.AR submitted that in the instant case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) by an order dated 23.05.2011. During the course of original assessment proceedings, the AO called for the details including the issue with regard to the gift received from HUF which was placed before the AO and the assessment was completed after duly considering the submissions made by the assessee and the confirmation letter with regard to gift received from HUF. Therefore, argued that the reopening of assessment is invalid. 6. On the other hand, the Ld.DR supported the order of the Ld.AO. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ady made available in the assessment, hence, reopening the assessment on the same issue which was already considered by the AO and taken a view amounts to difference of opinion and on difference of opinion, reopening of assessment is not permissible. We have called for the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. After giving couple of opportunities, the Ld.DR submitted that the reasons could not be traced since the assessment pertained to A.Y.2009-10 which was very old. In the absence of production of reasons, we are of the view that no reasons were recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment. Since reopening of assessment is not permissible on difference of opinion and the fact that the department failed to furnish the reasons r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
