2014 (8) TMI 792

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The L. CIT(A) has erred under law and facts of the case in confirming the A/O which is bad in law, liable to be quashed. 2. That the proceedings u/s 147/148 have wrongly been initiated which were without any fresh material on record, hence liable to be quashed. There was no tangible material before the Assessing Officer to hold that income had escaped assessment within the meaning of sec. 147 and the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment constituted a mere change of opinion. Therefore, the reassessment is not valid, liable to be quashed. That it has been held by the Hon'ble S. C. and various H. Cs. And Hon'ble ITAT that in absence of fresh material which could lead to formation of opinion that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ange of opinion and the proceedings u/s 147/148 are bad in law and liable to be vacated. The view as expressed by the Hon'ble Kolkata H. C. in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs ACIT (2010) 232 CTR (Cal) 338, is relied upon. The L. A/O has suppressed the fact of initiation of proceedings u/s 154 and dropping the same vide order dt. 16.04.2007 u/s 154. This act of the L. A/O is against the principles of natural justice. 5. That the authorities below have erred in not considering the written submissions dt. 27.08.2010, 15,09.2010 and 23.09.2010 furnished before the L. A/O properly where in it was submitted that the proceedings u/s 147 as initiated are bad in law being against the settled principles of law, hence liable to be dropped a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... claiming relief u/s 89(1) of the Act. The crux of argument advanced on behalf of the assessee is that the benefit of sec. 10(10C) of the Act was wrongly denied to the assessee for which reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of Shri B. C. Pandey Vs ACIT (ITA No. 5805/Del/2011) and Jeevan Chandra Kabadwal Vs DCIT (ITA No. 3152/Del/2010). On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR defended the conclusion drawn by the ld. Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A). 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts in brief are that the assessee declared income of Rs. 2,11,012/- on 15.6.2006 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 23.2.2007. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer....