TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Writ Court primarily on the ground that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, would proceed as if it was issued pursuant to the direction given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as CIT (A)] notwithstanding the fact that no such specific direction was given for re-opening the assessment. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions with liberty to the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up with the intra court appeals. Brief Facts 2. The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of commercial and trading activities including investi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 5. Before the learned single Judge, the appellant contended that there was no direction given by the CIT (A) in its order dated 13 October 2016 for re-opening the assessment. The Assessing Officer was therefore not correct in taking inspiration from the appellate order for re-opening the assessment for the Assessment Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. 6. The learned single Judge considered the contentions taken by the appellant in the light of the order passed by the CIT (A). The learned single Judge opined that the appellant succeeded in the appeal before the CIT (A) on the ground that the entire amount of Capital was actually introduced into the books of the firm during the Financial Years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The learned single Judge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve been made by the assessee during the previous years. Analysis 9. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 by order dated 31 March 2015. Since the assessee failed to produce corroborative evidence for introduction of capital amount and its failure to co-relate the trail of funds, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 108,35,05,000/- as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 10. The assessment order dated 31 March 2015 was challenged before the CIT (A), Chennai. The Commissioner was of the view that the Capital was introduced in the course of the earlier two Financial Years and as such, the Assessing Officer can take cognizance of the matter only by way of initiating suitable p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer in the letter dated 7 June 2017 indicated that the firm has received a sum of Rs. 64 crores as capital introduction made by Shri Hameed Syed Salahuddin, who is a partner of the firm. According to the Income Tax Officer, in the absence of return of income for the relevant Assessment Years and lack of verifiable proof with regard to the source of investment, the order for the Assessment Year 2012-13 had treated the entire opening balance of credit to the Capital Amount as on 1 April 2011 as unexplained credit and brought the same to tax under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer made an observation that the Appellate Authority in its order indicated that such additions under Section 68 cannot be undertaken in the ....