Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.41 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. on 12 January, 2015
4. On perusal of the facts in the case of the present assessee and the facts
and the decision in the case of ATS Infrastructure Ltd. vs ACIT(supra) and CIT
vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd.(supra), it emerges that there is a very thin line of
difference but a very vital and critical difference, wherein a case the AO accepts
the explanation of the assessee on the issue on which he had reopened the
assessment and does not make an addition on the said issue but makes
addition of other items and a situation where the AO does not accept the
explanation of the assessee on the issue on which the assessment was
reopened and makes addition of the same [which was however subsequently
deleted in appellate proceedings, which in the present case, the addition of
Rs.9,60,000/-, the basis of reopening was deleted by the ld. CIT(A)] and also
make additions in respect of other items, which comes to his notice
subsequently during the course of reassessment proceedings. This difference
is very vital in deciding the present case.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range ... on 22 January, 2008
(emphasis supplied by me)
4.1. As discussed above, in the case of the present assessee the AO
disallowed the claim of the assessee of LTCG of Rs.9,60,000/- claimed as
exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act on the basis of which the assessment was
reopened and was added u/s 68 of the Act and had also made other additions
u/s 68 of the Act in respect of unexplained money andcheque deposit
amounting to Rs.15,48,000/-and u/s 69 of the Act in respect of unexplained
27
ITA NO.2650/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2012-13)
purchase of property amounting to Rs.20,62,375/-. Therefore, relying upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT(supra), it is held that the AO was justified in making
additions in respect of the other items being unexplained which he came across
during the reassessment proceedings and for this no separate notice u/s 148 of
the Act was required to reassess the said other income being unexplained
because he had made the addition in respect of the item, on which, he had
reopened the assessment. In my humble opinion, the observation of the
Hon'ble Court in para no.21 of this order stating that the Tribunal was right in
holding that the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to reassess issues other
than the issues in respect of which proceedings are initiated but he was not so
justified when the reasons for the initiation of those proceedings ceased to
survive was in the context, wherein, the AO had accepted the explanation of
the assessee in respect of the issue on which the assessment was reopened and
where no addition was made by the AO in respect of the said issue and not in a
situation where the AO had made addition in respect of the issue on which the
assessment was reopened but was subsequently deleted in appellate
proceedings. Even, when the addition in respect of the issue on which the
assessment was reopened but was subsequently deleted in appellate
proceedings will not obliterate the validity of the reasons recorded by the AO for
the reopening of the assessment and the valid assumption of jurisdiction by
the AO for reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. The assumption
of jurisdiction by the AO for reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act
28
ITA NO.2650/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2012-13)
is on the basis of validity of the reasons recorded by the AO on a particular
issue and is not decided by the subsequent deletion of the said issue in
appellate proceedings. So, once, the assumption of jurisdiction, on the reasons
recorded by the AO are valid, then the consequential reassessment proceedings
are also valid and the merits of the addition in respect of items other than on
which the assessment was reopened has to be decided on merits
notwithstanding the fact that the issue on which the assessment was reopened
was subsequently deleted in the appellate proceeding.
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. Ats Infrastructure Limited, New ... vs Acit, Meerut on 31 August, 2018
4. On perusal of the facts in the case of the present assessee and the facts
and the decision in the case of ATS Infrastructure Ltd. vs ACIT(supra) and CIT
vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd.(supra), it emerges that there is a very thin line of
difference but a very vital and critical difference, wherein a case the AO accepts
the explanation of the assessee on the issue on which he had reopened the
assessment and does not make an addition on the said issue but makes
addition of other items and a situation where the AO does not accept the
explanation of the assessee on the issue on which the assessment was
reopened and makes addition of the same [which was however subsequently
deleted in appellate proceedings, which in the present case, the addition of
Rs.9,60,000/-, the basis of reopening was deleted by the ld. CIT(A)] and also
make additions in respect of other items, which comes to his notice
subsequently during the course of reassessment proceedings. This difference
is very vital in deciding the present case.