TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me issue cannot be agitated twice. There is no such any fresh material - See Kelvinator of India 2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT The assessing authority had reopened the issue which was already taken in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. The same issue cannot be taken second round on the ground that the ld. CIT(A) had disallowed. The ITAT had quashed the revenue appeal on technical ground and the issues were untouched by the ITAT.Therefore, the Assessing Officer was indeed in error in adopting such a hyper-pedantic approach and in holding that there was valid reopening U/s 148 on the issue which were already delt in first phase of assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act in same assessment year. Recorded reason is itself bad i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, and borrowed satisfaction can t be ground for reopening. C.I.T (A) also failed to take the cognizance of the same ignored the case laws brought to her knowledge. 3. That the C.I.T(A) failed to consider the Past History of the assessee and case laws brought to her knowledge via Telelink v/sCIT(P H), specially when previous year were decided by the CIT(A,) as well as Hon able Tribunal in which 8% profit rate has been applied instead of 12% applied by A.O. So the addition made to the time of Rs. 1 131004/-totally against the provisions of law, so the addition made on this score may be deleted. 4. That the C1T (A) as well A.O. merely on surmises and conjectures made the addition of Rs. 1597347/-without providing any reason which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed an appeal before the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana. The matter is pending before the Apex Court. On basis of the confirmed addition of CIT(A), the ld. AO reopened the hearing second time u/s 148 for escapement of income amount of Rs.27,28,351/-. The addition was made on that basis. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), challenging both in technical ground and in quantum addition. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. 5. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a paper book on dated 28.06.2019 which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel vehemently argued and first pointed out the recorded reasons of the assessing officer which is extracted as below: Reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Asr)/2011 and dismissed the appeal of the Department in ITA No. 08(Asr)/2011. The Hon ble ITAT quashed the assessment made by the AO by holding that the notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law as it was issued on 04.02.2009 whereas there was sufficient time to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2007-08. The Hon ble ITAT observed that the jurisdiction u/s 147 can be acquired only after the limitation to issue notice u/s 143(2) had expired. Thus, the Departmental appeal has been dismissed by the Hon ble ITAT only on technical ground. However, the Department has filed an appeal u/s 260A before the Hon ble P H High Court, Chandigarh against the order of the ITAT, Amritsar. 4. The departmental appeal has been dismissed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for assessment reassessment proceedings could not be initiated after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year merely on basis of allegation that assessee had obtained accommodation entries from another company regarding bogus purchase of software. 6.3 The ld. Counsel further argued that the AO failed to record his satisfaction before issuing the notice u/s 147/148 of the Act. The notice has been issued on borrowed satisfaction which is bad in law. And there is no new material has come to knowledge of AO on basis of which the AO issued the notice u/s 147/148 of the Act. The AO did not mention anything related to the same in his reasons recorded. The ld. Counsel had respectfully relied of the orders of apex court which a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as taken as subject matter of reopening as recorded reasons by the assessing authority. In second phase the notice u/s 148 was issued by the ld AO. The same issue cannot be agitated twice. There is no such any fresh material, Kelvinator of India (supra). The assessing authority had reopened the issue which was already taken in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. The same issue cannot be taken second round on the ground that the ld. CIT(A) had disallowed. The ITAT had quashed the revenue appeal on technical ground and the issues were untouched by the ITAT.Therefore, the Assessing Officer was indeed in error in adopting such a hyper-pedantic approach and in holding that there was valid reopening U/s 148 on the issue which were alrea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
