TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of sec. 147 of the Act, for other AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 - income in respect of 14 flats ta be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee in the AY 2010-11,2011-12 and 2012-13 No infirmity in the directions of the CIT(A) u/s 150 of the IT Act for the AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee in this regard. Computation of turnover arising on sale of flats for each of the AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 - We direct the AO to examine the computation of turnover for the said AYs as disputed by the assessee. - ITA No. 335/H/2020 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2021 - Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member And Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri K.C. Devdas For the Revenue : Shri Rohit Mujumdar ORDER PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against CIT(A) - 3, Hyderabad s order dated 30/01/2020 for AY 2009-10 involving proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act on the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld.C.I.T (A) _ 3, Hyderabad (CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within one year from the end of the relevant AY by availing the benefit of sec. 139(4) of the Act. As such, the assessee is a non-filer. 3.1 subsequently, the AO received a specific information from Sub Registrar Office through the Intelligence Wing of the department i.e., the DIT (I CI), that the assessee, being a developer, had entered into a Development Agreement cum GPA, vide Document No.4943/0S dated 07.05.2008 In view of this, as the assessee did not file the return of income for the impugned AY 2009-10, the AO had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax on account of development agreement had escaped assessment within the meaning of sec. 147 of the Act. 3.3 Accordingly, the AD issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.20016, after having obtained the prior approval of the competent authority i.e., the PCIT-3, Hyderabad. However, as there was no response to the said notice, the AO issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act along with the show cause letter. As there was no response to the said notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act also, the AO resorted to completion of the assessment ex-parte u/s.144 of the Act on the basis of registered Document No.4943/08 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate proceedings at ₹ 1,64,97,000/-. 7.3 In view of this, during the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the assessee was asked to explain the reasons for its failure to file the returns of income for various AYs disclosing the transactions pertaining to development of the land and sale of flats. In response thereto, it is submitted by the AR of the assessee that the assessee has actually incurred loss on account of the project and, therefore, it did not file the return of income. However, the assessee could not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that it had incurred loss on the development of the project / flats. 7.4 I have carefully considered the submissions made by the AR of the assessee, but the same is not acceptable inasmuch as, as per the provisions of sec. 139(1) of the Act with effect from the AY 2006-07 and onwards, it is mandatory on the part of a firm to file its return of income within the due dates stipulated thereof, notwithstanding the fact that there is no taxable income Le., its income is below the taxable limits. As such, even in a case of a loss, as applicable to a company, the firm is also required to file its return of income withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt, it has been judiciously held that the AO can re-open the assessment beyond the period of limitation u/s 149 of the Act, on the basis of findings and direction issued by the First Appellate Authority i.e. CIT (A), apart from the Hon'ble ITAT, Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the case may be. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 7. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) having allowed the appeal of the assessee by quashing the assessment order passed for AY 2009-10 u/s 144 rws 147 of the Act, erred in giving direction to the AO to take necessary action to bring the escaped assessment to tax for the AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 which is without jurisdiction. He contended that under the provisions of section 150(2) of the Act, the assessments for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 could not be reopened as on the date of passing the appellate order on 30/01/2020, the period of limitation to reopen the assessment was barred by time. 8. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
