9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order u/s 147/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 passed on 8-12-2018 in the case of Smt.Chamboo Gupta on the basis of alleged order dated 25-07-2019 as per grievance of the assessee which is not an order in eye of law as it is not accompanied by ITNS Form, Demand Notice u/s 156, Penalty show notice etc.'' 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in quashing the order u/s 147/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 passed on 8-12-2019 in which the interest of revenue addition of Rs.3,41,360/- has been made by the AO as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act on account of purchase of shares of M/s.VMS Industries Ltd. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. Therefore, the AO assumed that the assessee did not want to say anything and in view of limitation for completing the pending scrutiny assessment, the AO passed the judgement u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record and made following additions:- i. Rs. 3,41,360 on account of investment for purchase of shares of VSM Industries. ii. Rs. 4,59,000 on account of unexplained investment u/s 69A being the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. It is also noted that since the assessee already had an assessment order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the AO wherein her contentions were accepted by the AO after due verification of material on record and hence she chose not to reply to the show cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held as investment. Her case was reopened to tax the profit arising on sale of shares of VMS Industries Ltd., a penny stock company. On verification of the papers submitted by him, it was found that the impugned transaction related to sale and purchase of this script, stood duly accounted in the copy of ledger account. The transaction was squared off the same day, i.e. on 14.06.2011, and it resulted in a loss of Rs. 12,433/-. In view of the above facts, no adverse inference is drawn as regards the impugned transaction and the returned income of the assessee is accepted. However, as the assessee in her ITR originally filed by her, had understated her income, and concealed the particulars to that extent, she is liable to penalty under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing officer. 3.5 It has been held repeatedly held that when an issue has been debated. and scrutinized in any assessment order the same cannot be used reopen the assessment once again. Any mistake leading to underassessment can only be cured by resort to revision under section 263 and it is not up to the assessing officer to go ahead or reopening of the assessment based merely on a change of opinion. 3.6 On the proposal of dates and the facts as given in the appeal and even disregarding the complaint filed by the appellant, it is clear that the 2nd assessment order cannot stand the test of appeal and hence is annulled. The appeal of assessee is allowed.'' 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the order of the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee (13-14). Therefore the order so passed is a valid order. The reliance of the department is solely on the alleged lapses of the first AO in enclosing ITNS; Demand Notice, Penalty Notice etc. which is not maintainable. Your honour's kind attention is being drawn on provisions of section 2928 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which reads as under Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds. 292B. No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding. furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e had purchased shares for Rs. 3,41,359.92 and sold the same on the very same day for Rs. 3,28,926.96 and had incurred a loss of Rs.. 12.432.96 (Report provided by the broker is enclosed at APB 21). Consolidated report of transactions undertaken by the assessee in shares during the year under consideration is also enclosed at APB 17-20 transaction in above said scrip appears at APB 19. When a transaction of purchase of share stood squared off on the same day then there is no occasion to make investment of Rs. 3,41,360 for which addition had been made. Hence the addition made by the Id. AO is without any basis and the ground of the department on this issue may kindly be rejected. Ground No. 3: Quashing the order dated 08.12.2019 The ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
