TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act dated 29.03.2012. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, assessee filed return on 06.06.2011 and also filed various documents as required by the AO. Thereafter, the re-assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act re-computing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 48,27,360/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A) who vide order dt.10.05.2019 dismissed the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before me and has raised the following grounds : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the reopening of the assessment by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act in this case, is ab-initio-void and unsustain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the deduction of Rs. 15,00,000/- claim u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act from Long Term Capital Gains." 3. The Ld.A.R. subsequently, filed the following "additional grounds" : "1. As per sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Income Tax Act the return of income could have been filed only upto 31-03-2010. The assessee however filed her return of income on 06-06-2011. Accordingly the return of income filed after 31-03-2010 is an invalid return. 2. The assessment in. this case has been made u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in its recent judgment dated 06-09-2019, in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....placed on the following judgments wherein it has been held that purely legal additional grounds which do not require any further investigation into the facts may be admitted. (i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. 53 Taxman 85 (SC) (ii) NTPC Ltd. 88 taxmann.com 561 (SC) (iii) Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd 66 Taxman 27 (Bombay)" 4. At the outset, before me, the Ld.A.R. brought my attention to the additional grounds and submitted that the same are legal in nature. In this case, as per Ld.A.R. the AO assumed jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act merely for verification of the transaction by the assessee with one Shri Vishal Kedari. AO desires to conduct the verification of the said transactions. The Ld.A.R. for the assessee vehemently arg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in 356 ITR 481. This judgment is reliable for the proposition that for mere verification of the claim, power of re-opening of the assessment could not be exercised. 6. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. for the Revenue informed that the transactions of payments of money to Shri Vishal Kedar involves the role of Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited which is the subject matter of the legal scrutiny. Otherwise, Ld. D.R. heavily relied on the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 7. Hearing on both sides, I find that legal issue for adjudication relates to the validity of the re-opening of the completed assessment. There is no tangible material in this case. Admittedly, re-opening is done for mere verification of certain transaction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the Assessing Officer. Thus, it is for verification of the value of these shares and whether the computation is on the market rate on the date of such transfer. This, to our mind, would not in any J.V.Salunke,PA WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc manner enable the Revenue/Respondents to resort to section 147 of the IT Act. In the view that we have taken above, it is not necessary to refer to other Judgments relied upon by Mr. Pardiwalla and which also reiterate the settled principle that the reasons ought to be recorded on the date of the issuance of the notice and which must disclose the requisite satisfaction. The reasons as recorded cannot then be substituted or supplemented by filing an affidavit in the Court. Thus, additional reasons....