TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 147. In our view, this is nothing but the reopening of assessment on the basis of material which was available before the AO in the original assessment proceedings as there was no tangible material before the AO and therefore this is a patent case of review of the earlier assessment framed on the basis of same materials which is not permissible under the Act. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of CIT Vs Kelvinatpor India Ltd.[ 2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held that the re-opening can be made on the basis of tangible materials before the AO and not otherwise. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the reopening of assessment is quashed as being invalid and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case was framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 17.03.2015. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 29.03.2017. Finally, the assessment was framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 21.12.2017 by making an addition of Rs.87,91,502/- in respect of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) to the income of the assessee. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee challenged the order of AO on jurisdictional issue that reopening has been done under section 147 of the Act in contravention to various provisions of the Act in absence of any tangible materials, however, the same was dismissed by the Ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of same material which were there in the original assessment proceedings as same is not permissible under the Act. The Ld. A.R. therefore prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be reversed and the reopening may kindly be quashed as without any tangible materials. The Ld. A.R. in defense of his argument relied on the decision of Hon ble Apex court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinatpor India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). 7. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied heavily on the order of Ld. CIT(A) by submitting that the AO has recorded reasons on the basis of material before him and after recording the reasons reopened the assessment. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the reopening of assessment was very much c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord very clearly reflects that the AO has not show-caused the assessee on this issue and omission to disclose material facts during the course of assessment proceedings confers jurisdiction on the AO to re-open the assessment. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income of Rs.87,91,502/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I. T. Act. 9. It is apparent from the above that the very beginning of the first line the AO has started with the words that upon verification of the case records it is seen that assessee has received loans and advances from Vananchal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. during the year ended 31.03.2012 and thereafter in the second para it was mentioned that there was no deliberation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
