TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 282 and 282A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) Kanpur u/s 263 is wholly without jurisdiction as the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) could not be held to be erroneous. 3. That the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) Kanpur u/s 263 is bad in law, the same being passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. Because the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the appeal. 4. The following additional grounds have also been taken: 06. Because even otherwise, no notice having been issued u/s. 143(2) while framing the assessment u/s. 143(3), which makes the order passed u/s. 143(3) without jurisdiction no variation could be made to the income returned, the order passed u/s.263 would be without jurisdiction bad in law and be quashed. 07. Because the return filed on 26.09.2013 u/s.139(1) having being accepted and there being no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he notice under section 153A of the Act, the assessee furnished the return of income, declaring total income of Rs. 27,28,120/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 153A/143(3) of the Act on 30/3/2015, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 24,30,880/-. 9. Thereafter, as per the impugned order, during the course of examination of the assessment record, it was found by the ld. CIT that in the profit and loss account, the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 7,41,291/- towards interest paid to others. On examination of the balance sheet, it was found that unsecured loans worth Rs. 18,00,000/- are outstanding as on 31.03.2012 and during the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013, as per copy of accounts in respect of unsecured loan/creditors, the assessee had paid/credited a sum of Rs. 1,71,756/-, against which, in the profit and loss account, the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 7,41,291/-, meaning thereby, that an excess amount of Rs. 5,69,535/- had been claimed in the profit and loss account. Further, a perusal of the Computation of Income showed that the assessee had also deducted a sum of Rs. 8,16,873/- towards interest paid. On further examination o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Computation of Income, the assessee has submitted that section 40(a)(ia) is neither a draconian nor a penal provision but a check to ensure that the person rightly discharges his tax obligations and the government get its share of revenue. Once the recipient of income has paid tax or declares his income to be below the taxable limit recovery of tax from the payer may not be in consonance with the intent of law. With regard to jewellery found in locker No. 14, the assessee tried to explain the same by stating that the jewellery was received from father on 29.04.1977 as gift and the same was converted into new jewellery. The assessee's submissions have been considered. However, without documentary evidences viz. TDS certificates, confirmed copies of accounts from the persons to whom interest has been paid, etc., the genuineness of the assess. contention remained unverified. The assessee has further submitted that disallowance u/s 40a(la) of the Act is not attracted once the recipient of income has paid tax or declares his income to be below the taxable limit, recovery of tax from the payer may not be in consonance with the intent of law. This contention of the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmoned in this regard. It has been produced and perused. The ld. D.R. has confirmed at the bar, having made reference to the record, that the notice dated 17/11/2014 was issued under section 148 of the Act. For ready reference, a scanned copy thereof is being appended hereunder: 13. The return of income was filed on 26/9/2013. Undeniably, as is also available from the assessment order itself, as well as from the record, no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued within a period of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed, i.e., upto 30/9/2014. It was only due to this reason that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Here also, the assessment order itself is eloquent, inasmuch as it says that"................time to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was already expired, therefore a notice u/s 143(2) (sic 148) dated 17/11/2014 was issued..................". 14. In 'M/s NKG Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT' (supra), the coordinate Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has held that since the assessment order was barred by limitation, the validity of the revisional order passed under section 263 of the Act, based on such non est as....