TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 310
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isallowed out of the claim of the expenses and Depositing in Savings Bank Account is unwarranted, unjustified & improper & contrary to the provisions of the law & facts prevailing in the case. The addition so made arbitrarily may please be deleted. The appellant may please be granted just & proper relief in this respect. 3. The Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not appreciated the fact of the case and submission filed before the during the course of hearing and passed the order, rejecting the submission and confirming the Assessing Officer order, which is improper and against justice. The order passed by The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - II is passed in violation of rules of natural justice and may please be held as vitiated and be set aside. So also Preservation of Books of Accounts for Financial Year 2006-07 is practically and technically impossible. The Vouchers of Expenses Produced before the Assessing Officer are GENUINE and so the Disallowances of expenses needs to be deleted. 4. Returned Income be accepted and additions made needs to be fully deleted. 3. In addition to the grounds of appeal originally raised, the assessee has filed add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....48 of the Act was time barred. However, the assessee furnished submissions that the notice issued was within time and was issued after obtaining approval, but the request of assessee to give reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were not intimated to the assessee. The assessee made a fresh application for supplying reasons so recorded for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee further alleged that the allegation of Assessing Officer that the assessee had deposited sum of Rs. 2,29,806/- on 31.03.2007 in HSBC Bank savings account, was not considered while filing the return of income, was vague, as day-to-day transactions do not appear in the return of income filed. The assessee claimed that the said receipts were part of its consultancy charges and hence, the Assessing Officer had appeared to have issued the notice under section 148 of the Act to verify the genuineness of sources of deposits, which was not permissible in law. The CIT(A) noted the contention of assessee vide para 4.5 of the appellate order that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued within time and after due approval of JCIT. The second contention of the assessee was that reason....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the preliminary issue arising in the present appeal is in relation to initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer after receiving certain information through AIR data, recorded reasons for reopening the assessment and received necessary approval from JCIT under section 151(2) of the Act and issued notice under section 148 of the Act. In compliance, the assessee filed a letter dated 21.04.2014 stating that original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act be treated as return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, vide same letter dated 21.04.2014, the assessee asked the Assessing Officer to furnish reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act. The requirement of the Act is that where re-assessment proceedings are initiated against any assessee, then pursuant to the assessee having furnished the return of income, is entitled to get copy of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer had recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act, copy of which has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tself requested the Assessing Officer to give reasons of issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He asked the Assessing Officer to give the reasons in writing at an earliest opportunity, but no such reasons were provided to the assessee, which is the requirement of the Act. On the other hand, the reasons were quoted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order which as pointed out were at variance. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has questioned the deposits in HSBC Bank, whereas the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment talks of identical amount having been received from HSBC Bank. The question which arises in the present appeal is where the copy of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment have not been provided to the assessee at the first instance and also where there is a deviation in the reasons recorded and reasons as taken note of by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment order, can any addition be made in the hands of assessee. 14. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Trend Electronics (supra) in a case of reassessment, wherein an objection was raised by the assessee held that recording of reasons and furnishing of r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue could not be appreciated, that the assessee had asked for reasons recorded only once and, therefore, seeking to justify non-furnishing of reasons. The State is expected to act more responsibly." 15. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, where the assessment in the hands of assessee was reopened after recording the reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act and thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued requiring the assessee to furnish return of income and where the assessee had furnished the said return of income and had then asked for reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The Assessing Officer in the present case has failed to provide the copy of reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment to the assessee and in view thereof, remedy available with the assessee to object to the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment and duty of the Assessing Officer to deal with the said objections could not be taken care of. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Trends Electronics (supra), the reassessment order passed in the case of assessee is bad in law. Even otherwise, the Assessi....