TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the direction of the Addl. CIT u/s. 144A, having been signed by him on 31-03-2015 which the AO on the same date; he dictated the order on same date after considering everything; it got typed on that date; and got signed by the AO also on 31-03-2015. This shows that the order was passed by the AO somewhere in April, 2015 and signed by pre-dating it as 30-03-2015. The order was actually passed after 31-03-2015, it was barred by limitation. We therefore, set aside the assessment order as time barred and the consequential first appellate proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.331/PUN/2016 And ITA No.421/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2022 - Shri R.S. Syal, Vice President And Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri V.K. Shridhar For the Revenue : Shri Deepak Garg ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : These cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue against the common order dated 11-12-2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Pune [ CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2009-10. 2. Since, the issues raised in both the cross appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), wherein the CIT(A) upheld reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and disallowed claim u/s. 10B of the Act by placing reliance in the order of ITAT for A.Y. 2010- 11, however, remanded alternative claim u/s. 10A of the Act to the file of AO for its fresh consideration. Against the order of CIT(A), now, the assessee is before us by above said concise grounds of appeal. 8. The ld. AR, Shri V.K. Shridhar requested us to take up ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised challenging the action of CIT(A) in holding the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144A r.w.s. 147 of the Act is bad under law as a preliminary issue. The ld. AR submits that the AO issued notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire on 16-08-2011 calling for details on 39 points in the original scrutiny assessment proceedings and raised several questions with respect to the claim made u/s. 10B of the Act and in response to which, the assessee had filed all the details as sought by the AO. He submits that the AO examined the claim of assessee u/s. 10B of the Act and argued that it is not the case the claim went unnoticed or un-scrutinized. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. reported in 52 ITR 567 wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court directed the cost of bonus shares to decide in a certain manner. The Hon‟ble High Court of Calcutta held the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court was an information perfectly justified to take proceedings u/s. 147 within four years of the end of the assessment year, by holding so quashed the proceedings initiated u/s. 154 of the Act for reassessment. We note that in the present case, the AO completed the original assessment on 16-12-2011 and the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Regency Creation is on 17-09-2012 and the notice u/s. 148 is on 13-03-2014. Therefore, in our opinion, the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Regency Creation is a source of information and basing on which the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act within the prescribed time limit as provided u/s. 148 of the Act i.e. within four years. Therefore, we hold that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is valid. 10. The ld. AR also placed on record decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Prabhat Agarwal and submitted that the AO in the present case passed order on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by reasons of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year and in the present case, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act within four years from the end of the A.Y. 2009-10 and the order of CIT(A) in this regard is correct. 12. Further, the ld. DR, Shri Deepak Garg placed on record the decisions in the cases of Kartikeya International Vs. CIT reported in 10 taxmann.com 607 (Allahabad), CIT Vs. Novapan India Ltd. reported in 103 Taxman 56 (AP), Kumar Engineers Vs. CIT reported in 98 Taxman 103 (Punjab Haryana), CIT Vs. Raghunath Pr. Poddar reported in 96 ITR 316 (Calcutta), ITO Vs. Saradbhai M. Lakhani reported in 122 Taxman 111 (SC) and argued that the reassessment proceedings could be initiated on the basis of the information which was received by the AO and in the present case the information which was received by the AO was the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Regency Creation. The AO became aware of that decision which is an information u/s. 147(b) of the. The CIT(A) rightly held the view of AO in reopening the original assessment on the basis of information by wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39; in section 34(1)(b) includes information as to the true and correct state of the law and so would cover information as to relevant judicial decisions. The Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held the decision come to the knowledge of Income Tax Officer after the assessment is made is an information within the meaning of section 147(b) of the Act and negatived the question as mentioned above. 15. The Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Kumar Engineers (supra) the question therein was Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in law in taking into consideration the further facts which had been put up before the Departmental authorities? The Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in 75 ITR 373 (SC) which held the action of Income Tax Officer in reopening the reassessment proceedings in view of subsequent decision of privy council. Further, also considered the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. A.J. Zaveri reported in 68 ITR 594 which held that the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or better understanding : Time limit for completion of assessment and reassessments 153 (1) . (a) . (b) . Provided . Provided further . (i) . (ii) . (1A) . (1B) . (2) No order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 was served. 19. On perusal of sub-section (2) of section 153 of the Act explains that no order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation shall be made u/s. 147 of the Act after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was served. In the present case, we note that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was served on the assessee on 30- 03-2014 i.e. F.Y. 2013-14, thus, the time limit for reassessment is available with the AO is upto 31-03-2015. The AO passed pre-dated order on 30-03-2015 incorporating the directions dated 31-03-2015 issued by the Addl. CIT, directions of which are subsequent to the assessment order. The ld. DR submits that is a mistake the date was mentioned as 30-03- 2015 in place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
