TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As in the reasons recorded, AO has referred to three different assessment years in three paragraphs. While, in paragraph 1, he has referred to assessment year 2011-12, in paragraph 2, he has referred to assessment year 2010- 11 and finally in paragraph 3, he has formed a belief that income of Rs.10,00,000 chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for assessment year 2008-09. Thus, the reasons recorded make it amply clear that AO has acted mechanically and without application of mind to the facts and material on record. Such lackadaisical approach for reopening of assessment u/s 147 cannot be condoned. For this reason alone, the reopening of assessment u/s 147 has to be declared invalid as there is no nexus between the information availa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, assessee filed its return of income on 16.03.2015 declaring income of Rs.16,79,349. After calling for various details from the assessee, the Assessing Officer ultimately completed the assessment determining the total income at Rs.45,71,040. The variation between the income declared by the assessee and income determined was due to the following additions: i) Share premium under Section 68 : Rs.15,00,000 of the Act. ii) Donations : Rs. 2,16,922 iii) Loss on sale of machinery. : Rs. 2,86,619 iv) ROC fee. : Rs. 2,60,140 v ) Service tax demand : Rs 13,668 vi ) Additional sales-tax : Rs. 12,783 vii) Written claim of depreciation : Rs. 6,01,556 8. Against the assessment order so passed, assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, the Assessing Officer has commenced regular assessment proceedings by issuing notices under Section 142(1) of the Act. He submitted, when the time limit for completion of regular assessment under Section 143(3)/144 of the Act has not expired, Assessing Officer could not have initiated proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. In other words, he submitted, the Assessing Officer could not have initiated two parallel proceedings. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions: i) Medapati Venkayamma Vs. ITO, ITA No.252(Vizag.) of 2013 (ITAT Visakhapatnam) decided on 18.08.2017; ii) Sushil Kumar Jain v. ACIT, ITA No.181/Del/2016 decided on 24.06.2016 (Delhi-Trib); iii) CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee had entered into cash transaction exceeding Rs.10,00,000 in a month. The Assessing Officer has not elaborated in the reasons recorded, what is the nature of information received and what is the nature of cash transaction, whether, deposits in any bank account, cash purchases, cash receipts etc. Further, in the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has referred to three different assessment years in three paragraphs. While, in paragraph 1, he has referred to assessment year 2011-12, in paragraph 2, he has referred to assessment year 2010- 11 and finally in paragraph 3, he has formed a belief that income of Rs.10,00,000 chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for assessment year 2008-09. Thus, the reasons recorded make it amply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
