TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the sake of convenience. 2. The assessee in the present case is a company which filed its returns of income for the years under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2006-07 and A.Y. 2009-10 on 28.03.2007 and 25.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 5,83,497/- and Rs. 12,12,760/- respectively. The said returns were initially processed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, he reopened the assessments and issued notices u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee after recording the reasons. Pursuance to the said notices, the assessments were completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for both the years under consideration making the additions of Rs. 20,99,122/- and Rs. 56,25,000/- to the total i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act :- "Since the learned Assessing Officer has failed to make any addition on the ground on which the assessment was reopened, the impugned reassessment made by the learned Assessing Officer on other grounds which were not the subject matter of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment, the impugned reassessment order is bad in law and void ab initio and being without jurisdiction the same may please be annulled." 5. The assessee has also moved an application for admission of the additional ground stating therein that the issue raised in the additional ground is purely legal in nature and adjudication of the same does not require investigation of fresh facts. Since the ld. DR has not di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was made by the Assessing Officer on the issue, on the basis of which assessment was reopened, it was not open to him independently to make addition u/s 68 which was not the basis for reopening and the assessments made by him for both the years under consideration making additions u/s 68 are bad in law. In support of this contention, he inter alia has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 wherein it was held, after taking into consideration Explanation 3 to section 147 inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.1989, that section 147 has this effect that the Assessing Officer has to assess or reassess the income which escaped assessment and which was the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llegedly escaped assessment as is evident from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, but no addition was finally made by the Assessing Officer in the assessments u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 for both the years under consideration u/s 2(22)(e) and the addition was made only on the issue of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 which did not form the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessments for both the years under consideration. If these facts of the case, which have remained undisputed or uncontroverted by the ld. DR, are considered in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra), we find merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the....