TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules against improper assessment reopening and income addition, upholding tax disclosure timing.</h1> <h3>Shankar R. Mhatre. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle - 3.</h3> Shankar R. Mhatre. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle - 3. - ITD 117, 241, TTJ 116, Issues Involved:1. Legality of reopening u/s 147.2. Addition made u/s 69 based on VDIS declaration.Summary:1. Legality of Reopening u/s 147:The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment as bad in law. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice u/s 148 based on information from the Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Thane, that the assessee had not been granted a certificate under VDIS-97 and had not paid taxes on the disclosed assets. The Tribunal held that there was no application of mind by the AO on the material received. The VDIS declarations showed that the income and investments pertained to assessment years 1983-84 to 1996-97, not 1998-99. There was no live link between the material gathered and the income that escaped assessment for the year 1998-99. Thus, the reopening was held to be bad in law.2. Addition Made u/s 69 Based on VDIS Declaration:The AO made an addition of Rs. 33,85,000 u/s 69 based on the VDIS declaration. The Tribunal noted that the assets disclosed in the VDIS declaration were acquired in years prior to the assessment year 1998-99. The income from these assets was declared year-wise from 1983-84 to 1996-97. The AO incorrectly brought the entire income to tax in a single year (1998-99), which is not legally permissible. The Tribunal emphasized that the income should be taxed in the years it was earned, as stated in the VDIS declaration. The addition u/s 69 was deleted as the investments were not made in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year 1998-99. The Tribunal also noted that the filing of a conditional revised return by the assessee, under protest, cannot be held against him. The principle that there cannot be estoppel against the statute was upheld, and the addition was deleted as it did not pertain to the impugned accounting year.Conclusion:The appeal of the assessee was allowed, with the Tribunal holding that both the reopening of the assessment and the addition made u/s 69 were not legally sustainable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
