TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under exceptions mentioned in Rule 6DD of the IT Rules, 1962 without giving a clear cut finding on that regard - Decided in favour of revenue. - ITA No.1740/Hyd/2018 (Assessment Year:2008-09) - - - Dated:- 16-6-2021 - SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by: Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue by: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, DR ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT (A), Kurnool in appeal No.53/CIT(A)/KNL/2014-15, dated 15/6/2018 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2008-09. 2. The Revenue has raised four grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:- 1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contractor filed its return of income for the AY 2008-09 on 14/10/2008 declaring total income of ₹ 65,254/-. Initially, the return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act and thereafter the assessment was completed U/s. 143(3) of the Act wherein the assessee s income was assessed at ₹ 2,85,250/-. Subsequently, it was revealed by the Revenue s Audit party that the assessee had made cash payments exceeding ₹ 20,000/- aggregating to ₹ 21,94,715/- towards expenditure which attracts the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and thereby the same has to be disallowed. Therefore, the Ld. AO on agreement with the finding of the Revenue s Audit reopened the assessment U/s. 147 of the Act which was beyond the period of four year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, it is brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the payments of more than ₹ 20,000/- were all made as the banks were closed due to holiday and the exceptions mentioned in Rule 6DD are applicable to such payments. 5. In view of the facts of the case initiation of proceedings U/s. 147 is not valid and the appeal is treated as allowed. 4.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the Revenue is now on appeal before us. 5. The Ld. DR vehemently argued before us stating that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous, and his finding are not substantiated with any evidence. The Ld. DR also relied in the case CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt Limited (1999) reported in 237 ITR 13. It was therefore pleaded that the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer in the assessment. The fact that the recognition granted to this charitable trust had expired on 22-9-1992 was not noticed by the Income Tax Officer. This is not a case of information on a question of law. The dispute as to whether reopening is permissible after audit party expresses an opinion on a question of law is now being considered by a larger Bench of this Court. There can be no dispute that the audit party is entitled to point out a factual error or omission in the assessment. Reopening of the case on the basis of a factual error pointed out by the audit party is permissible under law. In view of that we hold that reopening of the case under Section 147(b) in the facts of this case was on the basis of factual information giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
