TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s bad in law, accordingly we quash the notice issued u/s 148. The assessee s case is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Swarna Andhra IJMII Integrated Township Development Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 852 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] . Respectfully following the view taken by the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, we hold that once the additions are not made on the issue for which the notice was issued, the AO is not permitted to make any other addition, accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and delete the addition made by the AO. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A.No.608/Viz/2018 - - - Dated:- 5-6-2020 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Accountant Member For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presenting the short admission of capital gains. No addition was resulted relating to the rental income which was believed to be escaped from the assessment as per the reasons recorded. Therefore, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and agitated the issue. In the written submissions filed before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee stated that the reason for issue of notice u/s 148 was on account of non disclosure of rental income from NRI academy which pertained to HUF but not related to the assessee. The assessee further stated that the rental income was declared in HUF and assessed in the hands of HUF. Since no addition was made u/s 148 in the assessee s case, with regard to rental income, the assessee argued that there is no case for m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and the said receipts does not belong to the assessee. Therefore, argued that the AO ought to have dropped the reassessment proceedings in the hands of the assessee. The Ld.AR further submitted that on receipt of reply from the assessee, the AO dropped the proposed addition, but made the addition relating to short admission of capital gains. The assessee submitted that since the AO did not make any addition for which the reasons were recorded, the AO is not permitted to make any other addition as decided by the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Swarna Andhra IIJMI Integrated Township Development Pvt. Ltd. in ITTA No.165/2014 dated 12.03.2014 and argued that the assessment required to be set aside and allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the NRI Academy that rent of ₹ 19,05,900/- was paid to various persons including the assessee. The mistake was rectified subsequently by filing e-revised returns. After considering the reply of the assessee, the AO dropped the issue and no addition was made relating to the rents. Since the PAN of the assessee was mentioned in the 26AS, the AO believed that income was related to the assessee and hence argued that there is no error in reopening the assessment and the reopening of assessment is valid. The Ld.DR further submitted that though the assessment was reopened for non admission of rental income and the addition was not made on rental income and no addition was made during the course of assessment proceedings, it has come to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of income filed by the assessee, the assessee has claimed the TDS to the extent of ₹ 30,752/- as against the TDS stated to be deducted to the extent of ₹ 1,90,900/-. Subsequently, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee clarified that the rental income received was not related to the assessee, but related to the HUF which was assessed to tax separately. The rental income was admitted in the HUF return. On an enquiry from NRI Academy, it was clarified that by mistake the rent was shown in the name of Sri Kilari Venkata Rosaiah and letter filed the revised TDS return. The AO also did not make any addition in respect of rental income. The above facts shows that there was a mistake in Form 26AS, which was issued by the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply. Moreover, in which case and when Explanation-3 would be applicable has been decided by various High Courts namely, Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., (331 ITR 236); Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT (336 ITR 136), Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Majo Deepak Mehta (344 ITR 641) and Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs. Mohamed Juned Dadani. In view of the consistent decision of these High Courts, we are not in a position to take a different view and the learned Tribunal has followed the consistent View of those High Courts. Even, we find that independent of the decision of those High Courts that the Explanation-3 will be applicable in case Where live issue, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
