AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1067
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce issued u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 is barred by limitation and thus consequent assessment framed is liable to be cancelled. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that notice issued u/s 148 of Income Tax Act 1961 is bad in law and barred by limitation. 4. The addition made by A.O. at Rs. 21,39,338/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5. The learned A.O. erred in making addition at Rs. 21,39,338/- on the basis of loose papers. 7.The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition at Rs. 21,39,338/- as unexplained investment in the house. The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of I.T Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of I.T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts are that the assessment relates to A.Y. 2001-02 notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2015 well beyond the prescribed limit of limitation. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr 355 ITR 345 (Del.) to buttress the contention that Tribunal while making such observation has not made the assessee as a party, even not given opportunity to make submissions. He further submitted that passing reference cannot be construed as the direction of the Tribunal. He further submitted that even otherwise also no direction can be given contrary to any provision of law. If the finding of the authorities below are con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the house in which not only the assessee, but the family of the assessee was putting up. The renovation was to be carried out by the person to whom the house belonged. No cogent material or evidence has been brought on record even on the basis of the material seized that the expenses for renovating have been incurred by the assessee. In our opinion, the onus lies on the revenue by making the addition to prove that the assessee had made the investment. In our opinion, if any addition has to be made for the renovation of the house, same should be made in the hands of the mother of the assessee as well as the son of the assessee to whom the house belong. We, therefore, delete the addition. In the result ground no.3 to 6 in assessee's appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ken the stand that it was not at all necessary for the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to have allowed an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner because that was in respect of the assessment proceedings pertaining to the said society. 15. From the above, it is clear that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to the passing of the order dated 13.01.2010 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in the cases of the said society. As such, one essential ingredient of Explanation 3 was missing and, therefore, the deeming clause would not get triggered. That being the position, Section 150 would not apply and, therefore, the bar of limitation prescribed by Section 149 is not lifted. 16. The learned counsel for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to anybody without that person having been heard. 17. In view of the fact that the deeming provision provided in Explanation 3 to Section 153 does not get attracted in the present case because an opportunity of hearing had not been given to the petitioner, the provisions of Section 150 would also not be attracted. In such a situation, the normal provisions of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the said Act would apply. Those provisions restrict the time period for reopening to a maximum of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the present writ petitions, the notices under Section 148 have all been issued beyond the said period of six years. Therefore, we are of the view that the said notices are time barred. ....