TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for any failure on its part to disclose fully and truly material facts that were necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration. As the assessment in the case of the assessee which was originally framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3), dated 30.12.2010, had thereafter despite there being no failure on its part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for framing of its assessment been reopened u/s.147 on 25.01.2014, i.e, beyond a period of four years from end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, we concur with the AR that the same not being as per mandate of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act, is thus, not maintainable and is liable to be quashed on the said count itself. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income for the assessment year 2008-09, declaring an income of Rs.17,62,060/-. Original assessment was, thereafter, framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2010, determining the income of the assessee at Rs.18,72,060/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by the A.O. u/s.147 of the Act, for the reasonthat as it had failed to deduct tax at source u/s.194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act on the interest of Rs.4,01,564/- paid to NBFCs, viz. (i) Magma Leasing Ltd; (ii) Magma Finance; and (iii) Kotak Mahindra, therefore, its claim for deduction of the said interest expenditure was liable to be disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued and duly served upon the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the satisfaction of the CIT(Appeals), therefore, he in exercise of the powers vested with him u/s 251(1) of the Act enhanced the income of the assessee by making an addition of Rs.14,54,062/-u/s.69A of the Act. Also, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favor with the view taken by the A.O as regards the quantification of remuneration allowable u/s.40(b) of the Act thus, reworked out the same and disallowed the excess claim for deduction of Rs.3,71,174/-. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was the claim of the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short AR ) for the assessee that as the assessee had disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for framing of his assessment, therefore, pursuant to framing of the original assessment by the AO u/s.143(3), dated 30.12.2010, its case as per the mandate of the first proviso to Sec. 147 could not have been reopened beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. As is discernible from the records the case of the assessee was reopened by the A.O on the basis of the following reasons to believe : ANNEXURE - A M/s Shree Rajendra Engineering Enterprises, Near Sub Station, BALCO, Korba Assessment year - (2008-09) In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the issue is debatable and not covered under the purview of section 154. Therefore, with a view to avoiding any legal dispute regarding applicability of suitable section, it has been considered proper and expedient to take recourse of section 147 in place of section 154. It is further submitted that, inadvertently under the impression that the case is within the time limit of four years, the notice u/s 148 has been erroneously issued on 23rd August, 2013 without obtaining your honour's statutory approval required u/s 151(1) of the Act. After obtaining your kind approval, fresh notice u/s 148 will be issued. 2. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, your honour is requested to kindly grant the statutory appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y all the material facts necessary for his assessment. However, in the case before us, we find that as stated in the aforesaid reasons to believe , the case of the assessee was reopened not for any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for its assessment, but on the basis of an audit objection raised by Internal Audit Party (IAP), Bilaspur.Apart from that, we find that there is no whisper in the reasons to believe that the case of the assessee was being reopened for any failure on its part to disclose fully and truly material facts that were necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration. As the assessment in the case of the assesee which was originally framed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
