2022 (5) TMI 1348

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....akhapatnam in ITA No.10656/2019-20/CIT(A)-1/VSP/2020-21 dated 14.09.2020 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13 and the cross objections are filed by the assessee in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed the return of income for the A.Y.2012-13 on 18.09.2012 admitting total income of Rs.15,41,278/- after claiming exemption of Rs.27,06,612/- in respect of long term capital gains on sale of shares. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 10.03.2015. The Assessing Officer(AO) reopened the case by issuing notice u/s 148 on 19.03.2019 on the basis of information received from investigation unit, Kolkata to the effect that the assessee was one of the benefi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on account of sale proceeds and he came to conclusion that this is nothing but unexplained cash credits made through pre arranged long term capital gains. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) after considering the case of the assessee held that the assessment was initiated to verify the genuineness of exempt income in the original return. Suspicion cannot be the basis for reopening the assessment and more so, the assessment is governed by provisions of section 147 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) also relied on the decision of jurisdiction bench of ITAT and quashed notice u/s 148 dated 19.03.2019 as invalid and consequently held the reassessment proceedings as void-abinitio. 4. On being....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing, it is prayed that all these above additions made on bogus LTCG be restored. Now the question before us is whether the notice issued u/s 148 is valid under the eyes of law or not. The Ld.DR submitted that there are many inconsistencies in the transactions performed by the assessee like gap of more than six months between the purchase of the shares and subsequent payment by the assessee. Therefore pleaded for setting aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). 5. On the other hand, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that all facts are brought out in the original return of income and the Ld.AO has passed order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tal gains, but the AO has not brought out any material evidence to establish that the assessee is also involved in this bogus sale transactions and claimed long term capital gains. The Ld.CIT(A) has considered the decision of jurisdictional High Courts as well as Hon'ble Bombay High Court and passed a detailed speaking order. We have also gone through the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Usha Exports Vs. CIT 185 DTR 87 who held that "the period of four years is of significance because of the first proviso to S.147 of the Act. It stipulates an additional requirement when the assessment is sought to be reopened after the expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year and where an assessment order u/s 143(3) is ....