TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already made in pursuance of the notice under section 148 and in that way he can make any number of times revised order but that cannot affect the position that when a return has been made in pursuance of the notice under section 148, till that return is disposed of by any assessment order or reassessment order, no further notice can be issued under section 148 of the Act. We find force in the contention of assessee that the second notice u/s. 148 without disposing of the return filed pursuant to the first reopening notice dated 19.10.2011 is invalid and, therefore, all the consequential action which has culminated in the assessment order dated 29.03.2014 is null in the eyes of law and resultantly void, therefore, is quashed. Since the legal issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. - I.T.A. No. 638/Kol/2017 And C.O. No. 38/Kol/2017, I.T.A. No. 638/Kol/2017 - - - Dated:- 29-5-2020 - Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM And Shri A. T. Varkey, JM For the Appellant Revenue : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT, DR For the Assessee Cross Objector : Shri Harish Agarwal, AR ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM Both these appeal and Cross Objection filed by the revenue and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision taken by the Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India, the assessee had set up a shifting and rehabilitation fund for the purpose of shifting and rehabilitation, dealing with fire and stabilization of the areas under its wholly owned subsidiary companies M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. For that purpose, the assessee had collected contribution from the subsidiary companies which was utilized as per the action plan ordered by Ministry of Coal. The contribution made towards the fund was to the tune of ₹ 194.75 cr. which was shown in Schedule C with the audited accounts. The original assessment was carried out under scrutiny u/s. 143(3) of the Act was framed by the AO vide order dated 02.12.2010. Thereafter, the AO issued the first reopening notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 19.10.2011 to the assessee, in response to the same the assessee filed letter dated 17.11.2011 along with the return of income. The reason for reopening was that the interest earned for contribution to shifting and rehabilitation has escaped assessment. 5. While the first reopening notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 19.10.2011 was pending before him, the AO without passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, the Ld. AR urged before us that framing of reassessment order dated 29.03.2014 (second reassessment order) pursuant to the second reopening notice u/s. 148 issued on 19.03.2013 is bad in law and without jurisdiction and need to be quashed. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR contended that this issue has not been considered by the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, this issue should be remanded to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to give a decision on it. However, he supported the action of the AO that when the AO finds during the reassessment proceedings pursuant to the first reopening notice dated 19.10.2011 that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, he has all authority to issue notice in respect of the escaped income and, therefore the second notice u/s. 148 issued on 19.03.2013 without awaiting the event of framing reassessment after reopening notice dated 19.10.2011 was issued is valid in the eyes of law and need not be disturbed. 7. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking and the original scrutiny assessment order for AY 2008-09 was framed under section 143(3) of the Act on 02 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act are still pending and have not been finally disposed of. Similar view was taken by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in Commercial Art Press Vs. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 876 wherein it was held that when reassessment proceedings commence following the issue of a notice under section 148 and the same are pending, no fresh notice can be issued under the same provision. The Hon ble Madras High Court while disposing of the order in A.S.S.P. Co. (supra) observed that there could also be no dispute that after the reassessment order is made in pursuance of the first notice issued under section 148, if the ITO has any reason to believe that there is any escapement of the income which will be covered under section 147 of the Act, he can issue fresh proceedings with reference to the assessment order already made in pursuance of the notice under section 148 and in that way he can make any number of times revised order but that cannot affect the position that when a return has been made in pursuance of the notice under section 148, till that return is disposed of by any assessment order or reassessment order, no further notice can be issued under section 148 of the Act. 9. It is noted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
