TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The other details as called for by Ld. AO were also furnished by the assessee - Considering the same, the assessment was framed on the assessee making certain additions. Thus, it was a case wherein there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for her assessment. Therefore, applying the case of Foramer France [ 2003 (1) TMI 101 - SC ORDER] it was to be held that notice issued u/s 148 was barred by limitation and consequential assessment framed by Ld. AO would be nullity. The decision of Pr. CIT vs. S. Chand Co. Ltd.[ 2018 (11) TMI 1067 - SC ORDER] also supports the proposition that reassessment proceedings merely at the behest of audit objection as based on mere appraisal of the same record wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer. ii) Rental ncome-Rs.5,46,116/-: The ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of rental income of Kannathur property, which is co-owned by the appellant, her husband and her son, under the pretext that there was tax arbitrage. Further, when all the three co-owners are in high tax bracket, the Revenue is not at loss and in all the earlier assessment years the rental income was shown under husband's return only. 3. The assessment was reopened only based on audit objection, purely on borrowed satisfaction of the ld. AO and not on ld. AO's independent enquiries. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. AO u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the Act, as there are no income which has e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings before lower authorities 3.1 The original return of income filed by the assessee was scrutinized u/s 143(3) on 19.03.2015. However, the case was reopened beyond 4 years from end of relevant assessment year and notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2018. In the recorded reasons, as placed on page nos. 17 of the paper-book, Ld. AO alleged that Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) to the tune of Rs11.42 Lacs was omitted to be offered by the assessee. Secondly, rental income of Rs.7.20 Lacs from Kanathur Property was to be treated as assessee s income. Lastly, medical expenses of Rs.0.97 Lacs were not allowable u/s 37(1). The assessee objected to the reopening vide its letter dated 26.07.2018 and furnished working of capital gains. It was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT vs Foramer France (129 Taxman 72) wherein it was held that in the absence of any failure on the part of the assessee to make return or disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, proviso to new section, which bars issue of notice under section 148 after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, squarely applied to facts of instant case and, therefore, impugned notice was barred by limitation. Since notice u/s 148 was without jurisdiction, the consequential assessment would be nullity. The assessee s submissions were subjected to remand proceedings wherein Ld. AO supported the assessment order. 3.4 The Ld. CIT(A) rejected legal grounds by observing that Ld. AO had picked up the informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnished by the assessee vide reply dated 18.11.2014. Considering the same, the assessment was framed on the assessee making certain additions. Thus, it was a case wherein there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for her assessment. Therefore, applying the ratio of cited decision of Hon ble Apex Court in CIT vs Foramer France (129 Taxman 72), it was to be held that notice issued u/s 148 was barred by limitation and consequential assessment framed by Ld. AO would be nullity. 5. The decision of Hon ble Apex Court in Pr. CIT vs. S. Chand Co. Ltd. (100 Taxmann.com 353) also supports the proposition that reassessment proceedings merely at the behest of audit objection as based on mere appraisa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
