AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that initiation of proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148 is bad in the eye of law as the condition and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in law in confirming the reopening ignoring the fact that there is no live nexus between the reasons recorded and the belief formed by the assessing officer. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad and iiable to be quashed as the same is barred by limitation. 5. (i) On the facts and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of income fax (Appears) [CIT(A)]is bad, both in the eye of las and on the facts. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that initiation of proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148 is bad in the eye of law as the condition and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reopening ignoring the fact that there is no live nexus between the reasons recorded and the belief formed by the assessing officer. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act on 12/06/2014. In the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer recorded that assessee was holding bank account in foreign bank i.e. HSBC Geneva and said account was not disclosed to the Income-tax Department. The detailed reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer have been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in assessment orders dated 30/01/2015 for AY 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively. In the assessment year for AY 1997-98, addition of Rs. 56,10,737/- has been made for unexplained deposit in the said bank account and addition of Rs. 3,09,152/- has been made for the interest income on said deposits. In AY 1998-99 addition has been made for interest accrued of Rs. 3,09,152/- in Foreign bank account. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment proceeding as well as upheld the addition on merit in both the years. Aggrieved, the assessee is before the Tribunal by way of the raising grounds as reproduced above. For AY:1997-98 4. In the grounds No. 2 to 5 of the appeal for assessment year 1997-98, the assessee has challenged validity of the reassessment proceeding. In grounds No. 6 to 9, the assessee has challenged m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. counsel submitted that in said case the account was not held in the personal capacity and it was held as settler of the trust and facts of present case being different, ratio of the said judgment cannot be applied over the facts of the instant case. 9. We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. In the case, the assessment has reopened on the basis of the statement of the assessee recorded under section 132(4) of the Act during the course of search proceeding at his premises. In assessment year 2012-13, the assessee declared outstanding balance in the HSBC, Zeneva account which includes principal amount and interest component accumulated till date excluding the withdrawal made from time to time. This account was initially opened in "the British Bank of Middle East", Geneva in financial year 1996-97 and funds were deposited in that. The British Bank of Middle East was later on merged with HSBC bank, Geneva in financial year 1998. During assessment proceeding, the assessee filed bank statement of the account w.e.f. 16/09/1998. Account of the prior period was not provided by the assessee. According to the statement 1,58,093.46 US dollar (USD) w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so as to allow upsetting proceedings, which has already been completed and attained finality. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in view of the various decisions cited quashed the reassessment observing as under: "14. The ratio of K.M Sharma and S.S. Gadgil, in the opinion of this court covers the facts of this case. Reassessment for 1998-99 could not be reopened beyond 31.03.2005 in terms of provisions of Section 149 of the Act as applicable at the relevant time. The petitioner‟s return for assessment year 1998-99 became barred by limitation on 31.03.2005. The question of revival of the period of limitation for reopening assessment for AY 1998-99 by taking recourse to the subsequent amendment made in Section 149 of the Act in the year 2012, i.e., more than 8 years after expiration of limitation on 31.03.2005, has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in K.M. Sharma (supra). 15. The AO has conceded in the order rejecting the petitioner‟s objection that "It is also found that the assessee was a non-resident as contended by him, in the AY 1998-99." In the circumstances, there can be no question about the applicability of the then existing provision- Section 149 (b), which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch the Act came into force and observed that: "11. Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule as stated by Halsbury in Vol. 36 of the Laws of England (3rd Edn.) and reiterated in several decisions of this Court as well as English courts is that all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or of evidence are prima facie prospectively and retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to affect, alter or destroy an existing right or create a new liability or obligation unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only." In Commissioner of Income Tax v Scindia Steam Nav....