TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1020
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the profit and loss account on account of:- [In Rs.] i) Accounting charges 30,000.00 Ii) Bank Charges 1468.08 iii) General expenses 25,680.00 IV) Telephone Expenses 3,600.00 v) Preoperative expenses written off 2,400.00 vi) Staff welfare 8,695.00 vii) Lease rent expenses 66448.00 Viii) Maintenance Charges 85,208.00 ix) Printing & Stationery 6,090.00 x) Remuneration to Director 2,88,000.00 xi) Salary 1,80,000.00 xii) Depreciation 2,50,781.00 without assigning any reasons, especially when aforesaid expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the company and in order to maintain its status. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on both facts and in law in confirming the action of the Ld. AO, in not allowing the set off of brought forward assessed business losses of earlier years without appreciating that the said disallowance is not supported by any cogent reason or any material on record. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) erred in rejecting application under rule 46A of the I'T Rules, 1962 and ignoring the document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see with following observations and conclusion:- "3. During appeal proceedings, the appellant has filed an application under Rule 46A and has requested for admission of additional evidence which is copy of all the returns already on record, certificate of incorporation, objects of the company. The reason for submitting the application under rule 46A has been stated to be "The AO has not allowed any opportunity of hearing to produce the evidence which was though referred by Mr. Mirola i.e. assessment records of earlier years. The AO had also not asked to produce the same. In view of this it was found necessary to file all the returns already on record, certificate of incorporation, objects of the company, board's resolution in order to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case. Though these documents are part of earlier assessment record but in order to avoid any controversy and also because these documents were not filed during the course of assessment proceedings it was found necessary to make application u/r 46A of the IT Rules along with a duplicate copy of the evidence. It is humbly requested since appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing such evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is dismissed. Ground No. 5 8. We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. At the very outset, ld. counsel of the assessee vehemently contended that Shri Sanjeev Bhardwaj was never authorised by the assessee company to file any letter either on 22.8.2008 or any other date considering that the receipts from rent from the property located in Sector 18, Noida may be treated as income from house property. Ld. counsel has drawn our attention towards affidavit dated 14.1.2013 of Director of the assessee company Smt. Sonali Ahuja and submitted that while the income of the assessee company was regularly treated as business income during all preceding assessment years viz. from 2001-02 to 2005-06, then there was no question of making such request on 22.8.2008 which was picked up by the AO for treating the income as income from house property instead of profits and gains of business and profession. On this issue, ld. DR submitted that a letter was submitted on 22.8.2008 before the AO by the AR Shri Sanjeev Bhardwaj who subsequently attended the assessment proceedings, therefore, the AO was correct in treating the rental receipt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel of the asessee submitted that the AO treated rental receipts of the company as income from house property only on the sole basis of a letter dated 22.8.2008 which was not filed on the instructions of the assessee and the AO did not consider the treatment given by the assessee and accepted by the revenue in earlier assessment yeas and other relevant facts. Ld. counsel vehemently contended that the CIT(A) rejected additional evidence of the assessee and upheld the conclusion of the AO only on the basis of wrong observations of the AO which were not sustainable in law and on the facts of the case. 11. Ld. DR replied that the AO had no option but to accept the admission letter of the assessee which was filed on 22.8.2008 and the CIT(A) had no alternative except to go with the conclusion of the AO which was supported by the assessee's letter accepting the stand and action of the AO. However, the ld. DR fairly accepted that the lower authorities did not consider the other relevant facts and circumstances while adjudicating this issue except impugned letter dated 22.8.2008 purported to be filed by the AR. The ld. DR placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n submissions/synopsis filed by the assessee before us narrated facts leading to impugned rental income which reads as under:- "2. In terms of the aforesaid objects, the assessee purchased shop in sector 18, Noida in the period relevant to the AY 2001-02 and used it for the purpose of business. The appellant has earned commission income in the first year itself amounting to Rs. 66,710/- and claimed depreciation on its shop opened at Sector -18, Noida. The assessee filed return for the AY 2001-02 declaring loss of 63,180/- after claiming depreciation, inter alia, on amount invested in shop. For the AY 2002-03, the assessee filed return declaring loss of Rs. 2,05,553/- and for the AY 2003- 04, the assessee filed return declaring loss of Rs. 1,03,106/- . On 14-01-2003 the board of directors in the meeting held at its registered office analyzed that in spite of their best efforts in almost two years they are unable to earn income while they were incurring losses for the last three years it is necessary to exploit their commercial space available at its Noida office by letting out same temporally till the company gets sufficient profits from its main business activities. This would r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 9,50,600 respectively and there was no business income from commission. In the AY 2005-06, there was rental income of Rs. 17,88,000 and there was no commission income during this period. In the year under consideration i.e. AY 2006-07, the assessee earned gross rental income of Rs. 19,75,500 and there was no business income during this period. 17. Under above noted facts and circumstances and as per year wise detail of gross rental income and gross business income submitted by the assessee, we clearly observe that the assessee company earned commission income from property transaction of Rs. 66,710 only in AY 2001-02 and in the subsequent AY from 2002-03 to 2006-07, there was no business income either from commission of property transaction or from any other business activity. When we consider the written submissions of the assessee in para 2, we clearly observe that the assessee company purchased a shop at sector 18, Noida in the first year of business operation during AY 2001-02 and the same was first time let out as per decision of Board of Directors meeting held on 14.1.2003 i.e. at the fag end of the financial period and there was a gross rental income of Rs. 90,000 onl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this situation, the rental receipts were treated as business income. In the extant case, the assessee only earned rental income which was not primary activity, hence, facts of the present case are distinguishable from that case. In our humble understanding, benefit of the ratio of this decision is not available for the assessee as the facts of the present case are distinguishable from that case. 20. In the judgement of Universal Plast Ltd. vs CIT (supra), it was decided that where the assessee is engaged in the business of giving cotton stopped its business and let out godowns and also separated machinery and let out pressing factory to a metal pressing factory, rental income derived therefrom could not be assessed as business income. In view of above, we respectfully note that benefit of the ratio of this judgment is not available for the assessee. 21. In the case of CIT vs New India Insurance Ltd. (supra), ld. counsel of the assessee has stressed upon the dictum that so long as the commercial asset is capable of being exploited as such, its income is business income irrespective of the manner in which the asset is exploited by the owner of the business. The assessee is ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties and services rendered than because of their letting of the tenements. If such a situation is found to be obtained, the other aspects such as nature of the property being commercial/business asset, etc. in the hands of the assessee as well as nature of the business of the assessee do not change the character of the income and the rental income does not become income from trade or business. 26. In the present case, the subject property let out by the assessee-company was undisputedly owned by it and it was a case of bare letting of tenement and the subject hired out was not a complex one. It was thus a case of letting out of a property owned by the assessee simplicitor and not a case of exploitation of the property by way of complex commercial activity. The rental income earned from the said property thus was chargeable to tax under the head "Income from house property" and not under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" as claimed by the assessee. As such, considering all the facts of the case and keeping in view the legal position emanating from the various judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, we hold that the rental income received by the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urn of income filed by the assessee without taking any view on a particular issue or treatment of income under a specific head. Hence, application of principle of consistency cannot be pressed in the present case. 27. At the cost of repetition, we may point out that the revenue authorities have not disputed this fact that the assessee company was incorporated on 12.12.2000 with a number of objects including as follows:- "to build, construct, establish, own, purchase, sell, take on lease or exchange or otherwise acquire, hold, maintain and manage industrial, commercial or residential buildings, apartment houses, hotels, motels, hostels, restaurants and to let, sublet, give on lease or otherwise permit to use and occupation for rent or hire charges and to provide for the tenants and occupiers thereof all or any of the conveniences commonly provided in residential, commercial and industrial quarters." 28. In view of above, the assessee company was incorporated with the main object to build, construct, establish, own, purchase, sell, take on lease or exchange or otherwise acquire, hold, maintain and manage industrial, commercial or residential buildings, apartment houses, hote....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said shop purchased in the first year of business operations 2001-02 relevant to AY 2001-02 should be let out temporarily till company gets sufficient profits from its main business activities. 30. With this background and aforenoted facts and circumstances, we respectfully take cognizance of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. vs CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) wherein after considering all previous judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court including dicta of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. vs CIT (1961) 42 ITR 49(SC), decision of Hon'ble constitutional bench to Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd. vs CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC) and also ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1962) 44 ITR 362 (SC), their lordships held as follows:- "The Memorandum of Association of the appellantcompany which is placed on record mentions main objects as well as incidental or ancillary objects in clause III. (A) and (B) respectively. The main object of the appellant company is to acquire and hold th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thers (P) Ltd., we would be well advised to discuss the law laid down authoritatively and succinctly by this Court in 'Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal' [44 ITR 362 (SC)]. That was also a case where the company, which was the assessee, was formed with the object, inter alia, of acquiring and disposing of the underground coal mining rights in certain coal fields and it had restricted its activities to acquiring coal mining leases over large areas, developing them as coal fields and then sub-leasing them to collieries and other companies. Thus, in the said case, the leasing out of the coal fields to the collieries and other companies was the business of the assessee. The income which was received from letting out of those mining leases was shown as business income. Department took the position that it is to be treated as income from the house property. It would be thus, clear that in similar circumstances, identical issue arose before the Court. This Court first discussed the scheme of the Income Tax Act and particularly six heads under which income can be categorised / classified. It was pointed out that before income, profits or gain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nature be a commercial asset. A commercial asset is only an asset used in a business and nothing else, and business may be carried on with practically all things. Therefore, it is not possible to say that a particular activity is business because it is concerned with an asset with which trade is commonly carried on. We find nothing in the cases referred, to support the proposition that certain assets are commercial assets in their very nature." We are conscious of the aforesaid dicta laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment. It is for this reason, we have, at the beginning of this judgment, stated the circumstances of the present case from which we arrive at irresistible conclusion that in this case, letting of the properties is in fact is the business of the assessee. The assessee therefore, rightly disclosed the income under the Head Income from Business. It cannot be treated as 'income from the house property'. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal." 31. On careful and vigilant reading of above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we respectfully note that in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stion would depend upon the circumstances of each case. In the light of above ratio if we analyse the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we have no hesitation to hold that the main object of the present assesssee company was not to earn rental income from letting of property which was purchased in FY 2001-02 and let out in FY 2002- 03 temporarily till the company gets sufficient profits from its main business activity with cautious decision of Board of Directors of the company dated 14.1.2003 with the intention to reduce burden of expenditure and losses suffered by the assessee company right from its incorporation during preceding three years. The present case clearly falls on all four corners within the dicta of the constitutional bench of Hon'ble apex court in the case of Sultan Brothers Ltd. vs CIT (supra) as the assessee company let out the shop situated at Sector 18, Noida not as per main objects of the assessee company and the same was let out in the third year of business operations temporarily when the assessee company could not earn income from its main object in spite of their best efforts. At this juncture, the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) and contended that the only income of the assessee company was computed and assessed under the head of income from house property and there was no other business activity during the financial year under consideration, therefore, the expenses claimed by the assessee in the profit and loss account were rightly disallowed by the AO. Ld. DR also submitted that the AO took a reasonable approach in allowing claim of audit fee and filing fee to the assessee. Supporting the impugned order, ld. DR submitted that the first appellate authority was right and correct in upholding the disallowance made by the AO. 37. On careful consideration of above submissions, at the very outset, we respectfully take cognizance of the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) and judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Ganga Properties Ltd. which were referred and followed by ITAT 'F' Bench Mumbai in the case of M/s Vatsalya Enterprises Ltd. vs ACIT (supra) and it was held that the expenses claimed by the assessee mostly pertained to carrying out of various operations and activities carried on by the assessee company which are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the purpose for which the expenditure is made should fructify into any benefit by way of return in the shape of income. The plain natural construction of the language of s. 57(iii) irresistibly leads to the conclusion that to bring a case within the section, it is not necessary that any income should in fact have been earned as a result of' the expenditure. It may be pointed out that an identical views was taken by this Court in Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC) : TC41R.491, where interpreting the corresponding provision in s. 12(2) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, which was ipsissima verba in the same terms as s. 57(iii), Bosc J., speaking on behalf of the Court, observed: "It is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in fact any profit was earned." It is indeed difficult to see how, after this observation of the Court there can be any scope for controversy in regard to the interpretation of s. 57(iii). It is also interesting to note that, according to the Revenue, the expenditure would disqualify for deduction only if no income results from such expenditure in a particular assessment year, but if there is some income, h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he observations of Lord Thankerton in Huges vs. Bank of New Zealand (1938) 6 ITR 636 (HL) TC16R.381, where the learned Law Lord said.' "Expenditure in course of the trade which is unremunerative is none the less a proper deduction, if wholly and exclusively made for the purposes of the trade. It does not require the presence of a receipt on the credit side to justify the deduction of an expense. " 10. Further, the Calcutta High Court in Ganga Properties Ltd. (supra), relying upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in CIT vs Rampur Timber, [1981] 129 ITR 58 (All.), observed and held as under:- "In our view, a limited company, even if it does not carry on business but it derives income from "other sources" has to maintain its establishment for complying with statutory obligations so long it is in operation and its name is not struck off the register or unless the company is dissolved which means cessation of all corporate activities of the company for all practical purposes. So long as it is in operation, it has to maintain its status as a company and it has to discharge certain legal obligations and, for that purpose, it is necessary to appoint clerical staff and secreta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO and upheld by the CIT(A), is restored to the file of AO for proper examination and verification after affording due opportunity of hearing for the assessee and without being prejudiced or influenced with the earlier assessment and impugned order on this issue. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the assessee is deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No.3 39. Apropos ground no.3, ld counsel of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) erred on both facts and in law in confirming the action of the Ld. AO, in not allowing the set off of brought forward assessed business losses of earlier years without appreciating that the said disallowance is not supported by any cogent reason or any material on record. Ld. DR replied that when the assessee company is making false claims and there was no business income of the assessee company, then the AO was correct in not allowing the set off of brought forward assessed business losses of preceding assessment years and the same was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A). 40. On careful consideration of above submissions, from the operative part of the assessment order, we note that the AO has noted that a similar situation prevails in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f NTPC vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) submitted that the additional grounds raised by the assessee are purely legal grounds which could not be taken before CIT(A) for want of proper legal advice, therefore, the same may kindly be admitted for adjudication. Ld. DR submitted that when the assessee did not raise these legal objections/grounds before the CIT(A), then the same cannot be raised during second appellate proceedings before the Tribunal. 45.2 On careful consideration of above submissions and perusal of additional ground raised by the assessee, we observe that in these grounds, the assessee is placing its objection regarding availability of assumption of jurisdiction for initiation of proceedings and issuance of notice u/s 147/148 of the Act. The assessee also wants to challenge the reassessment proceedings on the ground of section 149(1)(b) of the Act. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs CIT (supra), the Tribunal should not be prevented from considering the question of law arising in assessment proceedings, although not raised earlier. It was further held that the view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on u/s 147 is vitiated. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 is without jurisdiction and bad in law as the AO did not communicate reasons for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that income earned from exploitation of commercial space has to be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property' instead of under the head 'Profits and Gains of Business & Profession' and had incorrectly and unjustifiably upheld the said action of Ld. AO. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT( A) erred in upholding the disallowance of following expenses claimed in the profit and loss account on account of:- [In Rs.] i) Accounting charges 24,000.00 ii) Bank Charges 20,984.08 iii) General expenses 56,620.00 iv) Telephone Expenses 17,747.00 v) Preoperative expenses written off 2,400.00 vi) Travelling & conveyance 57,900.00 vii) Lease ren....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vs ACIT & Ors. (2004) 266 ITR 462 (Cal.) and submitted that the assessee is entitled to be supplied with the reasons in the event he challenges the notice for reassessment; assessee is not stopped from challenging the impugned notice after having submitted to the jurisdiction of the officer by filing returns. 46.1 Ld. counsel also pointed out that the reassessment proceedings are also barred by limitation inasmuch as the reasons for reopening have not been supplied to the assessee before expiry of six years from the end of relevant assessment year which is beyond the period prescribed u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act. Ld. counsel also placed reliance on the decision of ITAT 'C' Bench, Bangalore in the case of Shri G.N.Mohan Raju vs ITO dated 10.10.2014 in ITA No. 242 & 243/Bang/2013 for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 and submitted that the AO did not issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act before picking up the assessment for scrutiny and passing order u/s 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act, therefore, entire reassessment proceedings need to be quashed. 46.2 Replying to the above, ld. DR pointed out that the letter submitted by the assessee asking to supply reasons recorded for reopening are date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder challenge. However, we clarify that when a notice under Section 148 of the Income tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The assessing officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the assessing officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking Order before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years." (Emphasis respectfully supplied by underlining) 46.4 In view of above, when we analyse the willingness and desire of the assessee in the present case, we observe that the assessee was represented by Shri M.K. Nirula, CA and AR of the assessee company right from the beginning to the end of reassessment proceedings which were completed on 27.11.2009, however, from the letters filed as Annexure 1 al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e u/s 148 of the Act wherein supply of reasons recorded is not a criteria or precondition. 47.1 On careful consideration of above submissions, we are of the considered view that ground no. 5 of the assessee is devoid of merits as notice u/s 148 of the Act in this case relevant to AY 2006-07 was issued on 25.9.2008 which is very well within the prescribed time limit as per provisions of section 149(b) of the Act. As we have already noted that the assessee did not place his wiliness or desire before the AO after receipt of notice u/s 148 of the Act until completion of reassessment proceedings on 27.11.2009, seeking copy of reasons recorded, therefore, the assessee is not entitled for any benefit in this regard. 47.2 We further proceed to consider the proposition laid down by ITAT, Bangalore 'C' Bench in the case of Shri G.N.Mohan Raju vs ITO (supra) wherein it was held that if there was no valid issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and the assessments were done without following mandatory requirements of the Act, then subsequent proceedings are invalid. The relevant operative part of this order reads as under:- "Once the original return filed by the assessee was subject to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otices u/s 143(2) of the IT Act. He had not dealt with the scenario, where notice was issued prior to the filing of return by the assessee. We therefore, quash the assessment done for the impugned assessment years. Since the appeals of the assessee are allowed on its ground 3, other grounds are not adjudicated." 47.3 In the light of aforesaid proposition if we analyse the facts and circumstances of the present case, from the assessment order, we note that the AO has mentioned compliance of statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act with these observations:- "Notice u/s 143 of the I.T. Act, 1961 issued on 25.09.2008 for re-assess the income of the said assessment year. In response of the notice the assessee has neither filed revised return nor stated that the same has been treated income of return and thereafter picked up for scrutiny. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued in this case in response to which Shri M.K. Nirola, CA & AR of the assessee company attended the proceedings from time to time and filed the details asked for." 47.4 In view of above noted facts about reassessment order, it is vivid that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.09.2008 for reassessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel of the assessee placed reliance on various decisions including decision of Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Orient Craft Ltd. in ITA No. 5555/Del/2012 decided on 12.12.2012 and submitted that there is nothing in the language of section 147 of the Act to unshackle the AO from the need to show "reason to believe". The fact that the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act cannot be equated to assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, lead to the conclusion that the requirement of section 147 of the Act can be dispensed with when the finality of intimation u/s 143(1) is sought to be disturbed. Ld. counsel submitted that the assessment order passed for earlier assessment year on the same facts and material cannot be disturbed subsequently by way of invoking provisions of section 147/148 of the Act, therefore, issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and reassessment proceedings should be quashed. 47.7 Replying to the above, ld. DR placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs Rajan Jhaveri Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 291 ITR 500(SC) and recent decision in the case of DCIT vs Zuari Estate Development and.Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment years. The issue cropped up when the AO took up the case of the assessee for AY 2006-07 for scrutiny and reached to a conclusion that the gross rental receipts shown by the assessee deserve to be treated as income from house property instead of business income as claimed and declared by the assessee. In view of assessment order for AY 2006-07, the assessee recorded reasons for initiation of reassessment proceedings and issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act which was ended by passing the reassessment order u/s 143(3) r/w 147 on 27.11.2009. 48. At this juncture, it would be relevant and msot appropriate to consider the ratio of the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein their Lordships speaking for Hon'ble Apex Court and after referring its earlier judgment in the case of CIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (supra) at page 664 held as follows:- "After going through the detailed order passed by the High Court, we find that the main issue which is involved in this case is not at all addressed by the High Court. A contention was taken by the appellant-Department to the effect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per ratio laid down by the Hon'ble apex court after considering its earlier judgments in the case of CIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker (P) Ltd., (supra), DCIT vs Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it is clear that when the original assessment in earlier assessment years was completed u/s 143(1) of the Act, then there was no question of change of opinion inasmuch as while accepting the return u/s 143(1) of the Act, no opinion was formed by the AO and therefore, on this basis notice u/s 148 of the Act cannot be held as invalid. Respectfully following the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DCIT vs Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in the case of CIT vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker (P) Ltd. and also the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Usha International(supra), in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we hold that the AO validly assumed jurisdiction for initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act as there was valid reason to believe that the income has escaped a....