2001 (3) TMI 1031

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Income-tax has erred in confirming the same :-  (a)Rs. 2,59,725 and Rs. 29,400 aggregating to Rs. 2,89,125 on account of unexplained cash credit raised by the appellant on 19-11-1988 and 25-1-1989 in cash;  (b)Rs. 1,50,000 peak of unexplained cash credit in the name of M/s. Bharat Impex, and interest thereon; and  (c )Rs. 10,00,000 on the basis of promissory note seized and treating the same as unaccounted loan given to one Shri Raju Doshi and interest thereon. 2.That the Assessing Authority and Appellate Authority both have failed in considering properly the information and explanations filed and material available on record. 3.That in case of Cash Credit the appellant assessee h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 , the additional grounds raised by the assessee are clearly admissible. The learned counsel further pointed out that in the original grounds of appeal, the assessee had mentioned at ground No. 5 that "other grounds of appeal shall be urged at the time of hearing". Thus, it is argued that the assessee is competent to raise the additional grounds of appeal. 4.1 On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative opposed the admission of additional grounds of appeal. 4.2 After considering the rival submissions and keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), we are of the opinion that in the int....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the case of Plastic Concern v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 2322 (Cal.) of 1996 dated 10-6-1999] (A.Y. 1993-94). The learned counsel filed a copy of the above decision and also pointed out that the learned Judicial Member was a party to the said decision. 5.1 On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative contended that the issue regarding re-opening of the assessment to circumvent the time-barred assessment was not raised before CIT(A). It was further stated that CIT(A) has no power to cancel or annul the assessment. 5.2 In the rejoinder, the learned counsel contended that even the revised return filed by the assessee was duly considered in the original assessment and hence the proceeding under section 147 were obviously ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... But the original assessment had to be quashed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as the proceedings by way of issue of notice under section 143(2) were initiated beyond time. The reassessment proceeding under section 147 was ini-tiated by the Assessing Officer and the total income was assessed at Rs. 21,15,040 as was determined in the original assessment. Thus it appears that reassessment proceeding was initiated not because any income had escaped assessment to tax but to circumvent the time-barred assessment. Thus the reassessment proceeding under section 147 amounts to extending the limitation which the Assessing Officer is not empowered to. It is trite law that limitation period under section 143 cannot be extended by an Income-tax authorit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....47, the Assessing Officer can issue a notice of reassessment, even where a valid return filed by the assessee has not been disposed of, the power is hedged in by a condition that there should be a finding that income has been under-stated in the return or the assessee has claimed excessive loss, deduction etc. therein. There is no such finding in the present case. On the other hand, by framing an illegal assessment under section 143(3), which was quashed by CIT(A), it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has unearthed under-statement of income or excessive claim etc. in the return. In fact, it is not the case of the Assessing Officer that Explanation 2(b) is invoked. In the absence of any such finding, the pendency of the return filed ....