TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 541
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d dividend u/s 2(22)(3) of the Act. 2. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. Cross Objections 1. That learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as in facts by upholding the validity of reopening of assessment and issuance of notice u/s 148 though it was bad in law. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as in facts by not quashing the assessment which was passed in consequence to invalid notice issue u/s 148. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or delete all or any of the Grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of the appeal. 3. At the outset, the Ld. counsel submitted that there was a delay of almost a week in filing the cross objection before the ITAT (in short 'the Tribunal'). He referred to the petition filed for condonation of the delay alongwith affidavit by the director of the assessee company and submitted that there being a reasonable cause for delay of one week in filing the cross objection, the delay might be condoned. 3.1 The Ld. SR DR, on the other hand, did not raise any serious objections on condoning the delay in filin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal raising the respective grounds in appeal and the cross objection. 4. First we take up the cross objection of the assessee challenging the validity of reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. 5. The Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted a paper book containing pages 1 to 140 and challenged the reassessment proceedings before us on three counts. Firstly, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessment was reopened on the direction of the superior authority without own satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The learned counsel submitted that case was reopened merely on the satisfaction of the other Assessing Officer i.e. Addl. CIT, Range 12, who happened to be an immediate superior authority of the Assessing Officer. Secondly, the Assessing Officer has not applied any mind while reopening the assessment. In this regard, the learned counsel submitted that Assessing Officer has mechanically reopened the assessment without carrying his own enquiry in the case. Thirdly, reopening was based on change of opinion of the Assessing Officer. In support, the ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired to be issued in this case." 9. We find that the learned counsel has assailed the reassessment proceeding, firstly, on the ground that the assessment was reopened on the direction of the superior authority. In our opinion, the allegation of the Ld. counsel are absolutely incorrect. The Ld. counsel has nowhere brought before us that the Addl. CIT has issued any direction for reopening of the assessment. On the contrary, in the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has made source of the information as assessment order in the case of M/s G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Limited. Merely transferring an information by the Addl. CIT in the capacity of an Assessing Officer of M/s G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Limited, cannot be termed as direction issued by the Additional CIT to the Assessing Officer and, therefore, this contention of the Ld. counsel that Assessing Officer has recorded reasons to believe on the direction of the superior authority is rejected. Further, the Ld. counsel raised the issue that Assessing Officer has not applied his mind while reopening the assessment. We do not agree with the above contention of the Ld. counsel. On perusal of the reasons recorded, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is that such payment made by the company in ordinary course of business and whether lending of money is substantial part of the business. The Assessing Officer held that money lending is not substantial part of the business of G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Limited. According to the Assessing Officer following two conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied to be covered under exception as occurring in section 2(22)(e) of the Act: a) Such payment ought to be made by the company in the ordinary course of its business. b) Lending of money is substantial part of the business of the company. 13. The Assessing Officer in para-4.7 of the assessment order has held that condition (b) above was not satisfied due to following reasons: i. Money lending is not a substantial part of the business of G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Limited as interest income is as low as 0.0182% of the gross receipts. ii. The company is in the business of air ticketing and dealing in foreign exchange. iii. None of the main objects of G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Limited refers to the money lending activity. 14. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held the loa....