TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 719
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the reasons recorded within the meaning of Section 148(2) as such the reopening u/s 147/148 of the Act is not valid under the law? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the CIT (A) in holding that the re-opening of assessment u/s 147/148 is bad in law?" The facts leading to the filing of the appeal is, that the assessee had filed his return on 31.1.1999 showing a loss of Rs. 15,54,275/-. The said return was processed on 31st March, 2000. Proceedings were initiated on 18.10.2001 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the notice under Section 148 of the Act was served on the appellant on 19.1.2001. The reasons rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pened under Section 148 of the Act as the appellant had shown less value of the raw material amounting to Rs. 7,38,994/- in the closing stock. After due investigation the assessing officer made the addition of Rs. 49,278/- on the valuation of the closing stock due to less value of the raw material and also added Rs. 54,07,792/- on the commission paid by the petitioner to Pashupati Casting Pvt. Ltd., Aligarh. The assessing officer also disallowed certain telephone expenditure, advertisement and payment made to catering service. The assessee, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, who partly allowed the appeal holding that the reassessment proceedings were validly reopened. The appellate authority found tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....147 of the Act, the assessing officer was justified in making a fresh assessment of the entire income and, therefore, could also reconsider the question of claiming deduction on the commission paid by the petitioner. In support of the submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in V. Jaganmohan Rao and others vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Excess Profits Tax, Andhra Pradesh, 75 ITR 373 and Income Tax Officer and another vs. K.L.Srihari and others, 250 ITR 193. The decision of the Supreme Court in V. Jaganmohan Rao (supra) is not applicable in the instant case as it is a case of re-assessment under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which provision underwent a substantial change under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have been initiated, but, also any other income chargeable to tax, which may have escaped assessment and which comes to his knowledge, subsequently, in the course of such proceedings. Admittedly, in the instant case, it is not the case of the assessing authority that during the course of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act it came across any material relating to the payment of commission suggesting escapement of income under any of the heads. On the other hand, the Ist Appellate Authority has given a categorical finding that the assessee had claimed as expenditure the commission of Rs. 58,59,913/- in his Trading and Profit and Loss Account and the same was available on the record. Consequently, in the absence of any information havi....