Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2018 (6) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the Order passed uls.143(3) r.w.s. 147 without appreciating that the necessary satisfaction of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax as required u/s.151 of the Income Tax Act was not obtained prior to issuance of Notice u/s.148 and therefore the assessment itself was bad in law. 2. The Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the Reopening of assessment uls.148 of the Income Tax Act without appreciating that the Assessee Firm had disclosed thoroughly and fully all the material facts during the original assessment proceedings uls.143(3) and therefore the reason to believe formed by Id. Assess ing Of f icer was bad in law and not in conformi ty wi th requirement u/s.147. 3. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed vide notice issued under section 148 dated 27.03.2014 which was complied with by the assessee by submitting vide letter dated 10.04.2014 that return of income filed originally may kindly be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were duly issued and served upon the assessee. Thus the reassessment proceedings were started within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The reasons recorded for issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act are as under: "The assessee is partnership firm three partners and capital account of one of the partners namely Shri K.D. Mehta having share ratio 33.33% revealed that credit balance under this capital account ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtner. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment on frivolous and flimsy reasons which are nothing but change of opinion. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee after considering the submissions as have been incorporated in the appellate order in para 5.2 by observing that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that the assessee has not objected the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act whereas the AO has given sound reasons in para 2 of the assessment order for such re-opening. According to the Ld. CIT(A) the non compliance of the provisions of the Act are defined definite reasons to believe that income has esc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Ld. A.R. drew our attention to letter dated 30.08.2011 addressed to the DCIT (the AO) wherein in para No.4 the assessee has furnished the details of credits during the year in the partner's account and the ledger accounts. The Ld. A.R. also took us to the copy of capital account of Shri K.D. Mehta in which the credit balance appearing as on 01.04.2008 was Rs. 1,94,64,671/- and thereafter during the year various credit and debit entries were made and ultimately there was excess of debit over credit to the tune of Rs. 18,42,092/-. The Ld. A.R. submitted that all these details and information were provided before the AO at the time of framing of original assessment under section 143(3) and therefore reopening the proceedings under sectio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se was reopened within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in order to bring to tax the interest on capital account to the tune of Rs. 23,35,760/- comprising both interest to be charged on debit capital balance and withdrawal of interest wrongly allowed which according to the Revenue was wrongly allowed as the assessee has overdrawn the capital account to the tune of Rs. 18,42,092/- and therefore, the same needs to be withdrawn. The first appellate authority upheld the reopening on the ground that the assessee has not objected and challenged the reopening before the AO and the belief formed by the AO on the basis of records before him was correct and as per law. We find on the perusal of the records before us....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s considered the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. and various other decisions and held that there was nothing to show what triggered issuance of notice of reassessment as there was no information or new facts which could led the AO to believe that full disclosure had not been made and said notice can not be sustained. In the case of Motilal R. Todi vs. ACIT (supra) wherein it has been held by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal that there has to be fresh tangible material in the possession of AO at the time of recording of impugned reasons before he could proceed to record the reason for the reopening of the case while relying on the decision the of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kel....