TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 891
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n confirming the validity of assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 without properly appreciating the facts & circumstances of the case. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 1150353/- by declining u/s 54F without properly appreciating the facts & circumstances of the case. 3. Because the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & facts in making an addition of Rs. 86,432/- on account of alleged FDR interest without properly appreciating the facts & circumstances of the case." 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee modified Ground No.1, vide application dated 12.12.2017, which is reproduced hereunder: "Because the ld. AO & CIT(A) have erred in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 without prope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no.4 Para 5.3 of the impugned order as under: "That the assessee received an interest on Income Tax refund to the tune of Rs. 11,24,308 in the year in question. This refund was due to him because the department had encashed the FDR's seized in the course of search. These FDR's pertained to be undersigned & also his family members. Apart from these FDR's which were seized in course of search operations, cash to the time of Rs. 15,00,000 was also created by the department which belonged to M/s Gupta Academics Pvt. Ltd. The entire seizure was made in the punchnama of the undersigned and therefore only the undersigned was emitted to the refund. In spite of the fact that refund has not been received in totality yet on the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is prayed that the Ld. A.O. be called to explain his view point so that an appropriate reply may be furnished. 7. The ld. CIT(A) accepted this fact that no addition can be made on the reasons recorded on the issue of interest income amounting to Rs. 11,24,308/- paid by the Department by observing in Para 5.4 of the impugned order, as follows: - "5.4 I have gone through the assessment order, submission of the assessee and legal position in this regard. A search had taken place on the appellant's group in which certain FDRs were seized and these FDRs were encashed. Later this interest amounting to Rs. 11,24,308/- was paid to the appellant by the department. The appellant had shown interest amounting to Rs. 3,73,578/- in his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts of the case, deleted the addition of Rs. 11,24,308/-, meaning thereby that the basis on which the jurisdiction u/s 148assumed by the AO, as such, no more existed. The assessee's counsel contended that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, the construction which favors the assessee must be adopted. This is an accepted rule of construction recognized by the courts is several to is decision. For this purpose, he relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) 2. Ranbaxy Lab Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del.) 9. The ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and contending that once the validity of the notice is survived the assessment is open ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the legislative intend. It is further held that, if after issuing a notice u/s 148, the AO accepts contention of the assessee and holds that income, for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that it has escaped escapement, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to indirectly assess some other income. 12. Similar view is taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Lab Ltd. (Supra), holding that there must be some nexus between "reason to believe" recorded and the assessment framed. In this case also, the AO had not made any addition on the basis of reasons recorded and try to reduce other valid claim of the assessee allowed during the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. 1....