TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 736
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in A.Y. 798/PUN/2015 for A.Y. 2006-07 reads as under : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Mumbai erred in invoking provisions u/s 263 of the Act, on the issue which was decided by the Assessing Officer and therefore such addition which is merely based on change of opinion is bad in law and void ab initio. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Mumbai erred in holding that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 14.02.2014 is erroneous and prejudicial to the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case, assessee has furnished the original return of income on 16.08.2010. Search under section 132 of the Act was carried out on Suyojit Group of cases on 17.09.2010. During the course of search, certain documents were found and seized. Thereafter, elaborate enquiries were made and the seized documents were confronted and statement of Shri Gulab Maharu Badgujar was recorded on 16.10.2010. Before the DDIT., Investigation, the transaction was explained vide letter dt.09.11.2010. Post the search and the enquiries made, no notice under section 153C of the Act or Sec.148 of the Act were issued to the assessee; but notice under section 153C of the Act was issued to several other parties. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act was issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Revenue authorities and we are not concerned with the fate of the additions in his hands. 9. The question which arises is the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act against the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, wherein the assessment proceedings were re-opened on specific reasons recorded for re-opening. We have already referred to the additions made on the aforesaid reasons in the hands of assessee in the Para above. Once, the re-assessment proceedings are initiated on a specific issue and the addition is made in the hands of the assessee then the Commissioner of Income Tax is precluded from exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he period of limitation provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 263 would commence from the date of the order of assessment and not from the date on which the order reopening the reassessment has been passed. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Para 10 further held that "10................ Where a reassessment has been made pursuant to a notice under Section 148, the order of reassessment prevails in respect of those items which form part of reassessment. On items which do not form part of the reassessment, the original assessment continues to hold the field. When the Assessing Officer reopens an assessment on a particular issue, it is open to him to make a reassessment on that issue as well as in respect of other issues which subs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent proceedings under Section 143(3) read with 147. In respect of those issues, limitation would commence with reference to the original order of assessment. If the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was to be in respect of issues which formed the subject matter of the reassessment, after the original assessment was reopened, the commencement of limitation would be with reference to the order of reassessment. The present case does not fall in that category." Taking strength from the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ashoka Buildcon Limited (supra), we hold that the order of revision passed in the present case, on issues which did not form subject of re-opening of the assessment or order of reassessment, cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....63 of the Act, the reason for exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax is again at the same document which was found from the residential premises of Shri Anant Keshav Rajegaonkar wherein the transaction totaling to Rs. 2.98 crore is mentioned. It may be pointed out that the said transaction relates to number of years and we have already referred to the details in the paras above. The first year was A.Y. 2006-07 wherein the amount mentioned on the document was Rs. 19 lakh. We have already held the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act to be not in accordance with the law in the paras above. 14. Now coming to appeal in A.Y. 2007-08, wherein the transaction noted i....