2019 (9) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... vide order dated 01.12.2016 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. The first challenge to the impugned order is qua the validity of the notice u/s. 148 of the Act which, raised per Grounds 2 & 3 of the appeal, was argued first in-as-much as an acceptance of the same may render as of no consequence the other Grounds impugning the assessment under appeal. The same is accordingly taken up first. 3. The facts, in-so-far as are relevant, are that the assessee-firm, running a brick- kiln, was assessed in the first instance u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 02.11.2012, making an addition for Rs. 1,20,000/- to the returned income (on 16/9/2010) of Rs. 1,81,850, assessing the income at Rs. 3,01,850/- (PB pages 21- 22). Notice u/s. 148....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g (of) proceedings. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed." Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 4. I have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. Without doubt, there has been an escapement of income chargeable to tax from assessment, i.e., prima-facie, inasmuch as income has been under-assessed on account of non-disallowance u/s. 40A(3) (refer Explanation 2(c) to sec.147), validating the AO's reason to believe qua the same as well as the recording thereof u/s. 148(2). That, however, is not the only condition to be positively satisfied for the issue of a valid notice u/s. 148 (1). Where being issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, in a case where the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent for a valid issue of notice u/s. 148(1), i.e., in terms of the first proviso to section 147? It is trite law that the obligation on the assessee extends to furnishing the relevant, primary facts, and the inference to be drawn therefrom, viz. as to admissibility or otherwise of a specific claim or allowance, is to be by the Revenue authorities (refer, inter alia, CIT v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. [1971] 79 ITR 609 (SC). The impugned order completely fails to address this specific charge by the assessee. Further still, it could also be argued that the relevant account having been furnished on being called for during the original proceedings, the same can only be regarded as having been examined thereat by the assessing authority, who though c....