TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 608
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03.2018 and on which the Assessee filed the C.O. No.09/Chny/20119. 2. M/s. Shri Balaji Communication, the assessee is a firm doing business of buying and selling film satellite copy rights from 2006 onwards. Its assessment for the Assessment Year 2008-09 was completed u/s.143(3) on 28.12.2010. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/s.147 by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and completed the reassessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s147 on 30.03.2016 treating the film rights purchased by the assessee as an asset, intangible one, and accordingly added the purchase price of the film rights to the returned income but allowed depreciation at the rate of 25% of the purchase value. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Objections of the Assessee raised in the CO: 1. "The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in as much as it is against the Cross Objector is opposed to law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Reopening of Assessment u/s.147: 2.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in upholding the reopening of assessment u/s.147. 2.2. Reopening beyond 4 years barred by Limitation: 2.2.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that since the reopening is beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year, the same is barred by limitation. 2.2.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Reopening is invalid when there is no failure on the part of assessee to disclose any material facts: 2.3.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer erred in exercising jurisdiction u/s.147 using the same materials made available before him during the course of scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.3.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that First proviso to section 147 bars the reopening the Assessment in the circumstances of the Cross Objector's case. 2.3.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Cross Objector had disclosed the entire details pertaining to purchase ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilure of assessee to disclose the material facts fully and truly. 2.4.5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that there is no case for "Reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment that too when there is no default or failure of assessee to disclose the material facts fully and truly necessary for assessment. 2.4.6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that since no new material had come to the possession of the Assessing Officer to have "reason to believe" and the reopening being based only on the materials already available on record amounts to mere change of opinion. 2.4.7. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) therefore ought to have held....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ately to his hometown, due to the family health and financial problems faced and had missed to send the same to the Counsel by oversight. Only on 16.02.2019 when the Counsel enquired about the appeal, the partner realized that the appeal papers were not forwarded. However, since the partner was unwell, he was not able to forward the same immediately to the Counsel and therefore the appeal papers were handed over to the Counsel on 19.02.2019. Thereafter, the Counsel prepared the Cross Objection and filed the same, due to which the delay of 116 days occurred which was not deliberate and neither willful nor wanton. Therefore, it was prayed that the delay of 116 days may be condoned and the Cross Objection be admitted and due justice is rendere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... years and it was not a permanent sale of satellite rights or copyrights of the programmes. The Assessing Officer further found that the parties to whom the assignment of the rights was given by the assessee had made TDS on the payments made to the assessee u/s.194J. The CIT(A) deleted the additions made u/s.40(a)(ia) of Rs. 2,71,19,000/-. However, on appeal by Revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal restored the addition made u/s.40(a)(ia). 3. It was noticed that in assessment: (a) The revised income as per revised return of Rs. 1,27,12,850/- was not added to the total income. While completing the original assessment. (b) The film rights purchases to the tune of Rs. 25,71,19,000/- was to be treated as intangib....