TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5 Vadodara has erred both in law and on facts of the case in passing an order u/s. 250 of the IT. Act, 1961 on 09.09.2019 for AY 2010-11 (2) The learned CIT(A) -5 Vadodara has erred in law and on facts holding that notice issued u/s. 148 of the IT. Act for AY 2010-11 by the learned ITO (Exemption) Vadodara is valid in the eye of law. (3) The learned CIT(A) -5 Vadodara has erred in law and on facts confirming the addition of Rs. 23,41,940/- made by the ITO(Exemption) Vadodara u/s. 10(23C) (iiiae) of the IT. Act, although it has been accepted by the learned CIT(A) that appellant is recognized organization u/s. 10(22A) of the Act as notified by the CBDT. (4) The levy of interest u/s. 234A of the I.T. Act an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act. The Assessing Officer however did not accept the assessee's contentions and held that assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Act since exemption therein is available to either hospital or other institutions, whereas assessee is a blood bank not engaged in dispensing medical facilities but is only collecting, storing and supplying blood to the hospital. Further the ld. Assessing Officer held that since the assessee had not supplied a true copy of the aforesaid letter dated 05-05-1975, its genuineness was under doubt and claim of exemption cannot be accepted basis the above letter. Further, the ld. Assessing Officer also held that the assessee is not working for philanthropic purposes as claimed by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account of non-grant of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiae), reopening of assessment proceedings are bad in law and deserves to be quashed. The ld. CIT(A) however rejected the assessee's arguments and upheld the additions made in the assessment order by observing that assessee could not demonstrate logic of high testing fee charged and as to how it was functioning for philanthropic purposes given the fact that the surplus during the impugned Assessment Year stood at 61% of total receipt. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the assessee's appeal and upheld order of Ld. Assessing Officer. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset challenged reopening of assessment on the ground that reassessment was initiated on the basis of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mala-fides on part of the assessee in not filing return of income for the captioned year in respect of the Godhara Branch and not claiming separate exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Act. On merits, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of letter dated 5th May 1975 issued by CBDT, the assessee is entitled to claim of exemption u/s. 10 of the Act. In response, Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that reopening was not bad in law since reasons recorded are general enough to cover addition u/s. 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Act. On merits, Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. Assessing Officer in their respective orders. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perusal the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some other income; if he intends to do so, a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary, legality of which would be tested in event of a challenge by assessee. In the recent case of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Pr. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 335 (Mumbai - Trib.), ITAT held that where AO recorded reasons on basis of which reassessment was initiated, but did not make any addition in reassessment proceedings, in such case primary reason to believe that income had escaped assessment would fail and reassessment could not be treated as a valid order. Again in ACIT v. Everest Education Society [20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings were initiated. The assessee had pointed out that the Ld. Assessing Officer had committed a factual inaccuracy by stating that a sum of Rs. 89,60,505/- was deposited in the bank account, whereas total cash deposits in the bank account held by the assessee were to the tune of Rs. 29,85,834/- only and this fact has not been controverted either by the Ld. Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A). In fact, we note that Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal proceedings disposed of the challenge on this issue with the remarks "As per Ld. Assessing Officer, cash deposit was Rs. 89,60,505/- whereas as per the appellant it has deposited Rs. 29,85,834/- only. Assessing Officer has accepted Appellant's version. Hence, dispute on this aspect ends here". Henc....