TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e gone through the record carefully. It emerges that the facts on all vital points are common in both the years therefore, for the facility of reference; we are taking up the facts mainly from A.Y. 2007-08. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Assessing Officer had issued notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act simultaneously in both the years on 09.10.2013. He reopened both these assessment years. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that these notices issued on 09.10.2013 in both the years are beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment years, i.e. A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09. The four years would end on 31.03.2013 at the most for A.Y. 2008-09. Ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through the reasons recorded for reopening. Such reasons are available on page no. 48 of the paper book (A.Y. 2008-09). The reasons read as under:- "G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd. PAN: AABCG0816F A.Y. 2008-09 09.10.2013 : I n this case, the High court vide its order dated: 17.04.2008 had directed HSCL to pay interest to the assessee for the period 28.11.1998 to 31.03.2008 i.e. for the period of delay in payment from the date when the original awa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ercantile system of accounting. Taking a clue from the finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in A.Y. 2009-10, the Assessing Officer has reopened these assessment years, i.e. A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. He recorded identical reasons in all these four years. The Tribunal has earlier considered this issue in A.Ys. 200506 and 2006-07. The Tribunal has recorded the following finding on this issue:- "6. The sole issue that arises for our adjudication is whether the reopening of assessments is bad in law. The reasons for reopening of assessments u/s 147 of the Act read as follows: "In this case, the High court vide its order dated: 17.04.2008 had directed HSCL to pay interest to the assessee for the period 28.11.1998 to 31.03.2008 i.e. for the period of delay in payment from the date when the original award was awarded on the amount of Award delivered on 28.11.1998. The enhanced interest received by "virtue of High Court order amounting to Rs. l0,58,25,030/- was not offered for tax in the A. Y. 2009-10. The CIT(A) in his findings vide order in Appeal No.67/CCXX/CIT(A)C-III/11-12/Kol dated 20.07.2012 stated that such interest income should be t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er appeal. According to the A.O., the facts of the present case are totally distinguishable from the decision of the cases of Rama Bai Vs. CIT (supra) and C.I.T. Vs. TNK Gobindarajulu Chetty (supra). In Rama Bai v. CIT (supra) and C.I.T. Vs. TNK Gobindarajulu Chetty (supra) the Supreme Court has laid down that interest on enhanced compensation for land compulsorily acquired awarded by the Court has to be taken to have accrued not on the date of the order of the Court granting such compensation but as having accrued year after years from the date of delivery of the land till the date of such order and such interest cannot be assessed to incometax in one lump-sum in the year in which the order is made. In the instant case the award of Rs. 7,78,13,692/- (Libyan Dinar 22,50,000/- + Rs. 39,00,000/-) was awarded by the Arbitrators by an Arbitration Award dated 28.11.1998. The High Court vide its order dated 17.04.2008 directed HSCL to pay interest to the assessee for the period 28.11.1998 to 31.03.2008, i.e., for the period of delay in payment from the date when the original Award was awarded on the amount of Award delivered on 28.11.1998. Since, the interest in questio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n addition of Rs.10,58,25,030/- by the ld. CIT(A) in this order for the AY 2009-10. There was no direction in this order of the ld. CIT(A). The reasons for reopening are based on this order of the ld. CIT(A). We examine the legal position on this issue. 6.4. The Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of R.H. Dave (supra) held as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal having held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no juridiction to direct the Income-tax Officer to bring the amount to tax in an assessment year not involved in the appeal before him, was justified in law in refusing to delete such direction given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner? Here, we are not concerned with Clauses (b) and (c) to Subsection (1) of Section 251. The Tribunal, as we have mentioned before, came to a categorical finding that the AAC had no jurisdiction to direct the ITO to bring the amount to tax in the correct assessment year, for, he could only decide the matter relating to the assessment year before him and not otherwise. This view of the Tribunal is corroborated by several decisions of the Supreme Court We may r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, irrespective of the finding of the AAC is, in our opinion, irrelevant. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, that the Tribunal was in error in coming to the finding, as we have mentioned, and to decline to delete the direction contained in the AAC's order." 6.5. This decision was followed by the Kolkata 'D' Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shalini Agarwal (supra). The bench held as follows: "9. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the ld. CIT(Appeals) after having allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 54F to the extent of Rs. 77,94,104/- and after having found that the construction of the house property of the assessee was not completed within the prescribed period, was of the view that the deduction allowed under section 54F was liable to be withdrawn in assessment year 2015-16 in which three years had expired from the date of transfer. He accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to tax the capital gains of Rs. 77,94,104/- in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 by initiating the proceedings under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....extract of the judgment is reproduced below:- "Section 33(4) of 1922 Act only refers to a finding or direction made by an appellate authority and does not itself confer any power on an appellate authority to make a finding or direction. Indeed, section 34 of 1922 Act deals with entirely a different aspect, that of empowering an ITO to bring to assessment escaped income, and has no concern with the powers of an appellate authority. The provision which deals with the powers of an appellate authority is section 31 of 1922 Act." Respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Murlidhar Bhaghubabu (supra) we conclude that Ld. CIT(A) has no power under the provision of law for giving any direction to AO for reopening of assessment. 'The appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is confined to the particular assessment year which is before him. Thus, in view of the above proposition, we dismiss the ground of Revenue's appeal. Consequently, Revenue's ground is dismissed." 7. Applying the propositions of law laid down in this various case laws to the facts of the case, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) has no power to give directions to the AO to reop....