2018 (6) TMI 1716

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) for the Asst. Year:2009-10 and the assessee has also filed the Cross Objection. 2. The Revenue Department has raised the following grounds of appeal. "1. Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right on facts and in law in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on the ground that she was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the documentary evidences before the AO during assessment proceedings even though the assessee neither made compliance of the statutory notices nor even once appeared before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings despite sufficient opportunities provided to her. 2. Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2010 and the same was processed u/s 143(1) on 29.12.2010 and the case was reopened while issuing notice dated 28.03.2014 u/s 148 of the Act stated to be served upon the assessee on 29th March, 2014, however, no return was filed by the assessee in compliance to the notice and thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) along with letter dated 27.10.2014 was also issued to the Assessee, which also yielded no result, however, the Assessing Officer finding nooption, framed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and made an addition on account of expenditure incurred on the marriage function of the assessee's sister namely late Smt. Saina Sachar which was solemnized on 27th April, 2008 i.e. F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10. The said assessment was challe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2009-10 due to the reason that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts in the return of income filed. 3. Necessary permission for issue of Notice u/s 148 is being solicited from the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-V, Amritsar."  Let us to peruse the relevant provisions of law: "147. If the AO has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any A.Y., he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allow....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rgeable to income tax. (b) Where a return of income has been furnished by the assessee but no assessment has been made and it is noticed by the assessing officer that the assessee has understated the income or has claimed excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return. (c) Where an assessment has been made, but- (i) income chargeable to tax has been under assessed; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this act; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this act has been computed."  The law on the provisions of section 147 is very clear. Section 147....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at a belief that on the basis of the material which he had before him, income had escaped assessment. As it was submitted by the learned Counsel that in the instant case one complaint was lodged before investigation Wing of the Income tax Department, which was simply forwarded to the ITO who while recording reasons for selection of the case, neither verified the facts qua information nor made any effort to find out the veracity and authenticity of complaint/information and any corroborative evidence/material thereto, but only acted on the information which according to our mind does not sound good reason for reopening of the case. It is clear that the Assessing Officer failed to make any exercise for reopening of the case independently ....