TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A)-PDY/2015-16 dated 20.03.2017 for the AYs 2008-09, 2008-09 to 2012-13. 2. Shri M.N.Maurya, CIT, represented on behalf of the Respondent and Shri K.Ravi, Adv., represented on behalf of the Appellant. 3. ITA No.768/Mds/2017 is an appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2008-09 against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), Puducherry, in respect of Assessment Order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. ITA No.767/Mds/2017 is an appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2008-09 against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), Puducherry, in respect of Assessment Order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147. It was submitted by the Ld.AR in respect of the ITA No.767/Mds/2017, the assessee had filed return of income for the relevant AY on 29.09.2008 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has given the reasons for the re-opening. It was a submission that computation of the disallowances had been wrongly done by the AO in the assessment originally u/s.143(3) on 28.08.2012. It was a further submission that the assessee has also not raised any objection on the reasons recorded but had participated in the re-assessment proceedings. It was a submission that the assessee having not furnished any objections on the reasons recorded specifically, it is clear that the assessee had agreed to the jurisdiction and the re-opening. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be upheld. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO for the pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds/2017 for the AY 2008-09: 7. This appeal relates to the AY 2008-09 against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of the deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act and enhance by restricting the deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) by the Ld.CIT(A). It was submitted by the AR that Ld.CIT(A) had not considered the objections raised by the assessee in respect of the enhancement proposed by the Ld.CIT(A) by restricting the deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act. It was a submission that on merits the whole issue of deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) itself has not been considered in its right perspective. It was a submission that Ld.CIT(A) has blindly applied the ratio of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of M/s.Lakshmi Vil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....10.2010. It was a submission that in the case of the original assessment the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act had been restricted. It was a submission that the assessment was re-opened by issuance of notice u/s.148 on 20.03.2014. It was a submission that the re-opening was done for the purpose of re-working the deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act. It was a submission that the re-opening was done on a change of opinion and the same was liable to be annulled. 11. In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the AO & the Ld.CIT(A). It was submitted by the Ld.DR that in the present case, the reopening was within the period of four years and consequently the reopening was valid.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act. This being so, the assessee vide his letter dated 17.04.2014 had requested for the treatment of the return dated 28.09.2009 as a return to the response to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. Only after that the AO has issued the notice u/s.143(2) on 15.09.2014. In the said notice, as the return was dated 28.09.2009, he had referred to the said date. In fact the said return dated 28.09.2009 is the return which is to be considered for the purpose of assessment as the same has been treated as the return in response to the notice u/s.148 by the assesse by the issuance of letter dated 17.04.2014. This being so, we are of the view that the notice issued u/s.143(2) is not barred by limitation. 16. It was furthe....