TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1765
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Assessing Officer u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), dated 31.03.2014. 2. The cross objection filed by the assessee in CO.No.41/Kol/2016, for Assessment Year 2006-07, is barred by limitation by 157 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay.We heard the party on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit the cross objections for hearing. 3. The grievances raised by the Revenue are as follows: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3)/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leted u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the AO had reason to believe that taxable income had escaped assessment in the case of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee replied to the AO that the return of income filedu/s 139 on 19-06-2006 may be treated as return filed u/s 148 of the IT Act,1961. Subsequently, the notices u/s 143(2)and 142(1) with specific requisition were issued and served on 12.09.2013, upon the assessee and thereafter on request from the assessee the reason for issue of the notice u/s 148 also was provided to the assessee. In response to the above notices, the assessee appeared on different dates and submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under the scope of 'loans and advances' as defined u/s 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act,1961 and is therefore taxed as deemed dividend in the hand of the assessee, Shri Sanjay Budhia. 4. Aggrieved by the stand taken by the Assessing Officer the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. Before us, ld counsel for the assessee submitted that ld CIT(A) had passed the reasoned order after considering all facts of the assessee therefore, his order should be sustained. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard of directors of the company passed a resolution of giving advance to the assessee, (vide Board resolution in paper book page No.33). We note that Ld DR did not controvert this factual position, explained by the counsel for the assessee. 7. We note that the assessee submitted a copy of agreement in form no. 22 dated 17.08.2005 of 'agreement for hypothecation and guarantee' (hypothecation of goods, machinery, books debts and other assets) between the state of bank of mysore and assessee, a director of the company, (pb.34-67). According to this agreement between the assessee and the bank,(because of the personal guarantee given by the assessee), as per clause 8 of the agreement that 'all the said goods and all sale realization and insuran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deemed dividend within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra (supra) on identical facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A).That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. C.I T.(A) deleting the aforesaid addition. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 8. Now we deal with assessee's cross objection No.41/Kol/2016, for A.Y. 2006-07. The assessee in his cross objections, has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment under sections 147/148 of the Act. 9. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act.The AO has merely reviewed the same set of documents and concluded that that there was escapement of tax which is not tenable. It is well settled that the AO cannot reopen a concluded assessment merely on reviewing the documents which are already filed before the AO during the original assessment. For that we rely on the landmark judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Kelvinator of India (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), wherein by affirming the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court, it was held as follows: "6. .... Therefore, post 1st April, 1989, power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are af....