TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 562
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO rejecting the contention of the assessee that reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act without complying with the statutory conditions and the procedure prescribed under the law is bad and liable to be quashed. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reason recorded for reopening of the assessment are bad in law, and as such the reopening of the assessment is illegal and liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in upholding the reopening of asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., applicable to salary payments. Against it, income under the head 'Salaries' was declared at Rs. 2,88,022/- only in the return. Thus, as per AO, there was a short declaration of salary income by Rs. 11,03,O54/-. Information were also sought by AO from ITC Maurya, the employer who informed that the other income included "Banquet Tips" which showed that the amount of Rs. 9,33,420/- was also paid by the employer to the assessee. In view of this discrepancy, the case was reopened as per provisions of Section 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 was issued on 16.12.2012. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were supplied to assessee on which objections were raised by him which were disposed of by AO vide letter dated 21.02.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be made. It is also observed by AO that the information called for from ITC Maurya confirmed that the amount of Rs. 9,33,420/- as mentioned in Form No. 16 was on account of banquet services and they were not aware If the employee concerned had incurred any expenses against this banquet service charges amount. In view of this, AO concluded that banquet service charges received by assessee are in lieu of his regular duties done by him as employee of ITC Maurya and he has not maintained any separate office to earn this Income. Therefore, this Income could not be said to be derived from a separate business and such receipts are part and parcel of his salary Income. Consequently, AO treated the amount of Rs. 12,38,253/- in lieu of salary under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536 (Delhi). Ld. Counsel of the assessee further stated that AO has grossly erred in reopening the assessment of the assessee only on the basis of Form 26AS and the TDS certificate issued by the employer of the assessee, hence, no tangible material was before the AO apart from the TDS certificate, to form a belief that income has escaped assessment. He further stated that it is a settled law that an assessment could not be reopened only on the basis of difference in TDS certificate and receipts shown in the P&L account. To support this contention he placed reliance on the following Tribunal's decisions:- i) Rafeeq Iqbal vs. ITO (ITAT, Hyderabad) - ITA No. 709/Hyd/2013 dated 13.9.2013. - 2013 (11) TMI 8 - ITAT Hy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utation of income the assessee has declared his income under the different heads as under:- 1. Income from salary Rs. 2,88,022/- 2. Income from House property Rs. (-) 32,193/- 3. Income from business and profession Rs. 1,95,877/- 4. Income from other sources : Rs. 29,661/-. As per 26AS data in the case of the assessee, based on the data provided by the deductor of tax in its TDS return, for financial year 2008-09 relevant to the assessment year 2009-10 the amount of total tax deducted was Rs. 3,74,755/- out of total payments covered u/s. 192B of the I.T. Act i.e. salary payments amounting to Rs. 13,91,076/-. Therefore, there is short declaration of salary income of Rs. 11,03,054/- . Perusal of the form no. 16 issued by ITC Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he harm that a less strict interpretation of the words 'reasons to believe' vis-à-vis an intimation issued under section 143(1) could cause to the tax regime. There was nothing in the reasons recorded to show that any tangible material had come into the possession of the AO subsequent to the issue of the intimation. The notice reflected an arbitrary exercise of the power conferred under section 147." 7.2 When I examined the facts of the assessee's case in light of the ratio laid down by the above decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. 354 ITR 536 (Delhi), I find that the above decision would be squarely applicable in the present case because no fresh material is brought by the Rev....