TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court was as to whether subsequent amendment to section 149, by Finance Act, 2012, which extended limitation for initiation of reassessment proceedings to sixteen years, could not be resorted to for reopening concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired/lapsed before amendment became effective. Hon ble High Court answered in affirmative. DR has placed vehement reliance on the order of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Dilip J. Thakkar [ 2022 (3) TMI 1307 - ITAT MUMBAI] and the ld. AR has pressed into service judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) which has binding effect on all the authorities below including this Tribunal. Therefore, binding preposition rende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rference is called for in the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) on merits and thus the ground no. 2 of Revenue is dismissed. - Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member And Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR For the Assessee : Shri Deepchand Garg, CA ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-23, New Delhi dated 25.08.2022 for AY 2003-04. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as follows: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in quashing the assessment order relying on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahm. Dutt (100 taxmann.com 324) without appreciating that the amendment to Sec 149(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st appellate order and submitted that when the assessment for AY 2003-04 had attained finality on 31.03.2010 and thus the last date of issuing notice was expired on 31.03.2010 before insertion of amendment in section 149 of the Act on 01.07.2012 then the ld. CIT(A) was right in following the ratio of the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) wherein it was held that on 22.03.2021 the Assessing Officer has no power to assume jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act for initiation of reassessment proceedings and thus impugned reassessment order was rightly quashed by the ld. CIT(A). 5. On careful consideration of above submissions, first of all, we note that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt of Delhi in the case of Brahm Dutt (supra) which has binding effect on all the authorities below including this Tribunal. Therefore, binding preposition rendered by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court (supra) has rightly been followed by the ld. CIT(A). 6. We are unable to see any ambiguity and perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) while quashing the reassessment notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 20.03.2020 and impugned reassessment order dated 18.06.2021 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by relying ratio of the judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT (supra). Accordingly, ground no.1 of Revenue is dismissed. Ground no. 2 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
