TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment order u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without serving mandatory notices u/s 148, 143(2) and 142(1) as per law and without recording valid reasons in the eyes of law and without recording requisite satisfaction as per law and without obtaining requisite approval as per law and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same is barred by limitation. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 4,47,00,000/- on account of interest accrued during the year that too by disreg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round No. 1, the assessee has challenged the validity of proceeding initiated without proper assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147, on the premise of (i) non-service of notice u/s. 148, 143(2) and 142(1); (i) recording of invalid reasons; (iii) failure to record requisite satisfaction; (iv) issuance of proceedings without obtaining requisite approval; and (v) issuance of proceedings beyond the period of limitation. 3. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the issue regarding nonservice of notices u/s. 148, 143(2) and 142(1) upon the assessee was not pressed before the first appellate authority, as categorically mentioned in para 4.1.1 of the impugned order. This fact, categorically mentioned in the impugned order, is not proved to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... non-satisfaction of the conditions envisaged u/s. 147 to 151 and the notice being beyond the period of limitation, too have been decided by the first appellate authority with categorical observation that "case of the assessee was reopened by the AO u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 after duly recording of the reasons. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued and duly served upon the assessee on 23.03.2012 in response to which AR of the assessee company appeared before the AO from time to time. Since the notice u/s. 148 was issued on 23.03.2012 within four years from the end of the relevant A.Y. 2007-08, therefore, the notice being within the prescribed time limit the contention of the appellant that notice was barred by limitation is without any m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....demand on the basis of court arbitration award confirmed in favour of the assessee during the financial year 2006-07, which were not recorded in the books of account of the assessee whereas the assessee has adopted mercantile system of accounting. Therefore, it was considered by the AO as the income of the current year whereas the assessee's contention was that it would be taxed in the year of receipt. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and added this amount to the total income of the assessee in the year under consideration. The ld. CIT(A) in appeal proceedings also confirmed the addition of the interest on accrual basis as observed by the Assessing Officer. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expiry of relevant period of limitation. Therefore, the assessee is not legally obliged to declare such receipts as their income before the actual receipt of such income because before the actual receipts of the amount awarded, the same remained uncertain. The ld. AR drew our attention at page 142 that out of three cases, the award in the case of NDCC, Ph-II, NDMC, New Delhi was made in favour of the assessee on 27.01.2007 which has been further challenged by NDMC and rest two awards were received on 17.07.2007 and 06.06.2007 which has been considered as interest income received by the assessee in F.Y. 2007-08. The case laws relied by the assessee are, therefore, applicable in the instant case. The assessee has correctly recorded such rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed by the assessee in the reassessment proceedings as well as before the ld. CIT(A). In the original assessment proceedings, this issue has already been examined by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the same should not be disallowed again on reassessment proceedings. The assessee has been adopting same method of accounting with respect to foreign exchange fluctuation gain/losses and this method was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings and therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer was not justified to change its view on the nature of accounting on the same set of facts and circumstances of the case in the reassessment proceedings. There is no adverse finding from the Revenue side about the correctness or co....