TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income that the AO cannot subject to assessment or reassessment, one would have to examine the grounds incorporated in the appeal [i.e., for AY 2010-11] which the appellant/revenue had preferred with the Tribunal. We may note that identical grounds were raised qua AY 2011-12, except for the difference in the amount that was added to the respondent s/assessee s income u/s 68 of the Act. Clearly, a perusal of the grounds of appeal would show that the appellant/revenue had directed its appeal towards the additions made under Section 68 of the Act. The reassessment proceedings, concededly, also dealt with the additions made under Section 68 of the Act. According to us, while the appeals preferred were pending adjudication with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.2019 has quashed the reassessment proceedings triggered against the respondent/assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, Act ]. 4.1 In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has taken recourse to the third proviso appended to Section 147 of the Act. 5. The appellant/revenue, being dissatisfied, has consequently lodged the above-captioned appeals. 6. To adjudicate the instant appeals, the following broad facts are required to be noticed: 6.1 Upon the Return of Income [ROI] being filed by the respondent/assessee, additions amounting to Rs. 4,95,00,000/- and Rs. 4,62,94,000/- were made qua the respondent/assessee for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively. 6.2 The assessment order dated 30.03.2015 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year to bring the amount to tax. In AY 2011-12, the addition made was Rs. 4,62,94,000/-. 6.5. This propelled the appellant/revenue to trigger reassessment proceedings against the respondent/assessee. Accordingly, a notice dated 29.03.2017 was issued qua the respondent/assessee under Section 148 of the Act. 6.6. Pending further progress of the reassessment proceedings, both the appellant/revenue as well as the respondent/assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal vis- -vis the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the CIT(A). These appeals were lodged in and about June 2017. 6.7. While the appeals were pending before the Tribunal, two separate orders dated 28.12.2017 were passed under Section 148, read with Section 143(3) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, no interference is called for with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. In support of his plea, Mr Aggarwal sought to place reliance on the following judgments: (i) Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (Central) vs. Edward Keventer (Successors) P. Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 200. (ii) Alcatel Lucent France vs. ADIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 379 (Delhi). 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The facts set forth hereinabove are not in dispute. The only issue that the Tribunal has dealt with and based on which the reassessment order was quashed, concerns the applicability of the third proviso appended to Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, before we proceed further, it would be helpful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for any assessment year: Provided also that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment. [Emphasis is ours] 11. A careful perusal of the third proviso appended to Section 147 of the Act reveals that the AO is free to assess or reassess such income which is chargeable to tax, provided he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, other than income which is the subject matter of any appeal, reference or revision. 12. Therefore, in order to appreciate as to which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
