TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tionalised Bank carrying on the business of banking. For the assessment year 2011-12, they filed its return declaring income of Rs. 550.19 crores, on 29.09.2011. After scrutiny of the same, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') on 28.08.2013 determining the total income of Rs..2117.12 crores. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2016 came to be issued, to which, the appellant filed its return on 20.04.2016 declaring the same income as was admitted in its original return filed on 29.09.2011 and also requested the assessing officer to furnish the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal. The Tribunal also, by order dated 30.09.2021, partly allowed the appeal and directed the assessing officer to re-examine the issue afresh in accordance with law. 2.5. Therefore, the appellant / assessee is before this court with this tax case appeal. 3.The following substantial questions of law are formulated in this tax case appeal: "1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that reopening of assessment is valid in the absence of any new tangible material that had come to the knowledge of the assessing officer after the completion of scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act? 2.Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse in holding that there is escapement of income wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel for the appellant, there is no escapement of income, since the amount reimbursed by the Government to the extent it pertained to interest, was already credited to P& L account and offered to tax; and in respect of the principal amount, the same was only the repayment of loan, which was paid by the Government, instead of farmer and therefore, the same can never be treated as income of the bank; hence, there was no new tangible material based on which the assessment was reopened by the assessing officer. However, without considering the said aspect in proper perspective, both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal erroneously upheld the reopening of the assessment by the assessing officer. In support of the said submission, he placed reliance on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e placed before it, the Tribunal has rightly held the reopening the assessment as valid, but remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration of the issue afresh and hence, the same does not require any interference by this court. 6.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this court. 7.The facts stated above are not in dispute. The issues raised before the Tribunal were (i)whether reopening the assessment is valid or not; and (ii)whether the amount received under Agricultural Debt Relief and Debt Waiver Scheme is taxable or not. The Tribunal recorded the following findings: Issue No.1: "6.We find from the above reasons that the finding given by the AO is that the assessee has already claimed ....