TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment u/s143(3) r.w. s. 147 of the Act is liable to be set aside and cancelled. As we have held that notice u/s 147/148 of the Act is not sustainable in law, we do not consider it necessary to go into all other legal grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal to support the plea for lack of jurisdiction and also other grounds on merits. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - I.T.A. Nos. 380 & 381/RPR/2014 And I.T.A. Nos. 399 & 400/RPR/2014 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2021 - Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member And Shri N. K. Choudhry, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Ajit Korde, Shri Vivek Ruia And Shri Ankit Agrawal , A.Rs. For the Revenue : Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.DR ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: The captioned cross appeals have been filed by the assessee as well as by Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bilaspur ( CIT(A) in short), dated 29.08.2014 16. 09 .2014 emanating from the assessment orders both dated 25. 02. 2014 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143 (3) r. w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed by the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that the assessment has been reopened without meeting the requirements of the 1st proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that the assessment was earlier completed under s. 143(3) of the Act and notice for re-assessment has been issued after four years from the end of the relevant A.Y. 2006-07. Thus, the A. O. was entitled to exercise jurisdiction under s. 147 of the Act only upon fulfillment of additional conditions imposed under 1st Proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The learned counsel in this regard adverted to the body of reasons recorded and contended that a bare reading of reasons recorded would show a total absence of any allegations to attract the 1st Proviso to Section 147 of the Act. It was contended that no allegation against the assessee that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for completing the assessment is discernible in the recorded reasons. In the absence of any such allegation at the threshold, the notice issued under s. 148 of the Act beyond four years in the case of completed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 47 of the Act has not been met and therefore, the action taken under s. 147 of the Act is beyond the limitation period prescribed. We observe that relevant assessment year is 2006-07 and the original assessment was duly completed under s .143(3) of the Act for the relevant assessment year previously. We find that the notice under s.148 of the Act was issued on 01. 03.2013 i.e. after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, the action of the AO under s. 147 of the Act is required to be tested on the touchstone of stringent conditions placed under 1st Proviso to Section 147 of the Act in addition to shackles placed under main provisions thereof. In the aforesaid factual background, we perused the reasons recorded below. It will be apt to reproduce reasons recorded hereunder for easy reference:- Reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of I. T. Act, 1961 for issue of notice u/s 148 of I. T. Act 1961 Perusal of the audited account reveals that assessee has claimed provisions for leave encashment amounting to ₹ 577. 92 lakhs for the year under consideration as admissible business expenditure. The provisions of section 43 B(f) in this r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to this effect in the reasons recorded itself. The AO has failed on this score. Thus, the reasons recorded when seen on standalone basis do not pass the tests of basic requirement for assumption of jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act. The notice issued for reopening a completed assessment on the basis of such reasons, is thus, time barred and merge in void. The re-assessment order framed on the basis of a time barred notice, thus, cannot be countenanced in law. Hence, we find merit in the ground raised by the assessee towards lack of jurisdiction under s. 147 of the Act. 7.3 Consequently, in our considered opinion, the AO has mis- directed himself in reopening the completed assessment without legal foundation. In this view of the matter, the impugned assessment under s .143(3) r.w. s. 147 of the Act is liable to be set aside and cancelled. We do so accordingly. 7.4 As we have held that notice under s. 147/148 of the Act is not sustainable in law, we do not consider it necessary to go into all other legal grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal to support the plea for lack of jurisdiction and also other grounds on merits. Similarly, the grounds raised by the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
