9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) is bad in law and in facts. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reopening of assessment despite the fact that no fresh material was available with the AO warranting issue of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. 2.1 That all the facts related to actual payment/non payment of sales tax, provident fund and ESI were available in Annexure H and Annexure I to the tax audit report filed in the form no. 3CD and hence, notice issued u/s. 148 tantamount to change of opinion which is not permissible under the law. 2.2 That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that prior to issue of notice u/s. 148, the AO had issued notice u/s. 154 which was not disposed off and therefore the reassess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT in Civil Appeal Nos.3612-3613 of 2012 dated 7th December, 2022, which is placed at page 215A of the paper book. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below. 4. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed from the record submitted before us mainly the approval form submitted by the AO before the ACIT/Commissioner of Income-tax dated 27.03.2012. As per the reasons to believe recorded by the AO are as under :- And notice issued u/s 154 of the Act for rectification of mistake u/s 154 of the Act, for the sake of clarity, the same is reproduced below :- 5. From the above, we noticed that the reasons recorded for both the proceedings are exactly similar and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espectfully following the above decision, we are of the view that in the proceedings initiated u/s 154, the AO has not acted upon pending proceedings u/s 154, the AO cannot initiate the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act which is beyond his jurisdiction. Two simultaneous proceedings cannot be initiated. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.M. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are inclined to quash 148 proceedings as bad in law. Accordingly, ground no.2 is allowed.
7. All other grounds are not adjudicated at this stage and kept them open.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of January, 2025. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
