9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"] concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08. 3. The Tribunal, via the impugned order, has sustained the deletion of addition of Rs.16,88,65,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"]. 4. To be noted, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"] via order dated 28.10.2016 had ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee on merits, and hence deleted the aforementioned addition. 4.1. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order passed by the CIT(A), the appellant/revenue had preferred an appeal. 5. The record shows, that the respondent/assessee had also preferred cross objections. The cross objections of the respondent/assessee were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the applicants, an assessment order, as noticed above, was framed on 24.10.2009 under Section 143(3) of the Act. 9. It is in this broad backdrop, that the Tribunal directed its attention both to the initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act and the merits of the case. 10. A perusal of the impugned order shows, that the Tribunal meticulously examined the record of the AO, which included the reasons given for re-opening, after the notice dated 12.06.2014 under Section 148 of the Act was issued. 10.1 The reasons furnished to the respondent/assessee for re-opening the assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Act via order dated 24.10.2009 are extracted in paragraph 7 of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record that there was a failure on the part of the respondent/assessee to disclose, truly and fully, all material facts necessary for carrying out the assessment. 13.2 That enquiries had been made relating to infusion of share capital including share premium and unsecured loans taken by the respondent/assessee during period in consideration. 14. Based on these findings of facts which are now assailed before us, the Tribunal concluded that the prerequisite for jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act with regard to a case falling under the first proviso was not fulfilled. 14.1 In other words, since more than four years had passed from the end of the relevant AY, reassessment proceedings could not have been triggered unless there was a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss objections of the assessee were allowed. Thus, having concluded that the cross objections of the respondent/assessee were viable, the Tribunal did not think it necessary to go into the merits of the case. 19. We have closely examined the record. None of the findings of the fact recorded by the Tribunal have been assailed before us. We have no difficulty in agreeing with the Tribunal that the respondent/assessee was put to scrutiny with regard to the infusion of share capital and had furnished the relevant information sought by the AO when the initial assessment order was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in reaching the conclusion that this was a case of change of opinion, and therefore, the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
