TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reassessment is in valid and not sustainable in law. Accordingly, we quash the reopening of the assessment and consequential reassessment - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed - ITA No. 558/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2018 - Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM And Shri Bhagchand, AM For the Assessee : Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.). For the Revenue : Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT). ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.03.2013 of CIT (A), Jaipur for the assessment year 2003-04. Earlier the appeal of the assessee was decided by the SMC Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 11.02.2016 however, subsequently the said order of this Tribunal was recalled by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in MA. No. 97/JP/2016 vide order dated 10.04.2018 on the issue of validity of reopening of the assessment in paras 4 and 5 as under:- 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 30.06.2003. The AO reopen the assessment by recording the reasons as under:- it has come to the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected to fix the appeal of the assessee for fresh hearing and adjudication in regular course. The parties to be informed about the next date of hearing. 2. Thus, this appeal of the assessee is again listed for hearing and adjudication of the issue raised in ground Nos. 1 to 7 as under:- Grounds of appeal, amongst others, are submitted as under:- 1 That the impugned order is against law and facts of the case. 2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming. The initiation of proceedings U/S 147 of I.T. Act by the I.T.O. ward 7(1), Jaipur on the basis of general information received from Director of Investigation, New Delhi without having incriminating and corroborative evidence on record. 3 That the learned commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals) erred in confirming the proceedings U/S 148 of I.T.Act against the primary information and documentary evidence on record was submitted by the assessee Appellant voluntarily regarding capital gain. 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax ( appeals) erred in confirming the impugned order passed only on the basis of incrementing letter of Director of Investigation Delhi with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounts after deduction of DD commission and therefore, the assessee had borne the DD charges against these two amounts. Thus, the ld. AR has contended that when the transaction was already disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee then, reopening on the reasons that the assessee has not disclosed this amount in the return of income is not valid as the AO has come to the conclusion that the income has escaped assessment was actually disclosed by the assessee in the return of income. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the Assessing officer has reopened the assessment when he received information about the transaction worth ₹ 5,60,845/- with M/s MKM Finsec (P.) Ltd. through two DDs as mentioned by the AO in the reasons recorded and these transactions have not been separately declared by the assessee in the return of income or computation of income annexed return of income. Therefore, at the time of reopening prima facie the Assessing Officer was having reasons based on the information that the income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee then the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of the assessment would not survive and the AO ought to have dropped the proceedings of reassessment proceedings. The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh (Supra) has observed in paras 27 to 30 as under:- 27. It is established principle of interpretation of statutes, that the Parliament is presumed to be not extravagant, in using the words, and therefore, every word used in the section, is required to be given its due meaning. 28. If considered on that principle, leaving apart for the moment, the aspect of interpretation of the word and as or , the existence of the word also is of a great significance, being of conjunctive nature, and leaves no manner of doubt in our opinion, that it is only when, in proceedings under s. 147 the AO, assesses or reassesses any income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment for any assessment year, with respect to which he had reason to believe to be so, then only, in addition, he can also put to tax, the other income, chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment, and which has come to his notice subsequently, in the course of proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
