TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petitions are taken up together for disposal. 2. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the respondent, under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') and the petitioner has filed these Writ Petitions, challenging the proceedings of the respondent for re-opening of the assessment for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 3. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petitions are as follows:- i) The petitioner was formed as a Partnership Firm and registered with the Registrar of Firms. They are engaged in the business of commercial and trading activities, including investing, acquiring and holding shar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 25.01.2017, and sought reasons for re-opening the assessment proceedings. The respondent, by communication, dated 07.06.2017, furnished reasons, after which, the petitioner filed their objections through a Chartered Accountant on 11.09.2017. The objections have been disposed of/rejected, by orders, dated 27.09.2017. These are impugned in these Writ Petitions. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the Assessing Officer, in the reasons assigned in the impugned orders for re-opening the assessment has stated, as if, there is a direction issued by CIT (A), while allowing the petitioner's Appeal, by order, dated 13.10.2016, and grossly erred in re-opening the assessment, merely by treating the observatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eve that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and therefore, the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected. Hence, the Assessing Officer should be allowed to complete the assessment, after which, it is open to the petitioner to exhaust the Appellate remedy available under the Act. 7. The CIT (A), while allowing the petitioner's Appeals, made an observation in para No. 7 of his order, dated 13.10.2016. The relevant portions of the observation are as follows:- " From the facts on record, it is clear that the contention of the appellant that no fresh capital whatsoever was introduced during the FY 2011-12 relevant to the AY 2012-13, which is the AY in question, in the books of the appellant-Firm is correct. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n only in the year of entry of the funds to the credit of the capital account. Therefore, a direction under Section 150 (1) was issued by the Ld.CIT (A) to re-open the assessment correspondent to the Financial Year, during which, the Capital was introduced. In the case of the assessee Firm, for the A.Y.2010-11, no return of income is filed. The capital introduced during the year is a sum of Rs. 64 crores. The Ld. CIT (A) had not provided relief to the assessee firm based on the finding on the genuineness of the source of credit, but only on the aspect of the year of introduction of the said credit. " 10. The petitioner submitted their objections dated 11.09.2017, in which, it is stated that, that CIT (A) nowhere, directed the Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 13.10.2016 (quoted above). The reasons for deleting the addition made in the hands of the assessee-Firm for the year 2012-13, is because, the capital was required to be introduced in the course of earlier two financial years, i.e. FY 2009-10 and F Y 2010-11. The CIT (A) did not stop with this observations, but made further observation by stating that, the Assessing Officer can only take cognizance of the matter, by way of initiating suitable proceedings for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The petitioner seeks to interpret the word 'Can' by stating that, it cannot be construed as direction, but the petitioner should read the word 'Can' along with next word 'Only. 12. The CIT(A) has pointed out that the As....