TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for assessment year 2008-09. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the jurisdiction u/s.147. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as facts while confirming addition of Rs.4,01,564/- u/s.40(a)(ia) on account of interest to NBFC's. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts while enhancing addition of Rs.14,54,062/- u/s.69C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That the assessee craves leave to add, alter and amend, modify, substitute, delete and /or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee firm which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als), therefore, he upheld the addition made by the A.O. Apart from that, the CIT(Appeals) in the course of proceedings before him carried out verifications as regards the authenticity of the sundry debtors as were shown by the assessee firm in its balance sheet for the year under consideration. It was gathered by the CIT(Appeals) that there were discrepancies of Rs.14,54,062/- qua the balance that was shown by the assessee as recoverable from BALCO, Korba. It was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that while for the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs.38,36,369/- (Dr.) as recoverable from BALCO, Korba, but the latter on the other hand in its books of accounts had shown an amount of Rs.53,40,431/-(Cr) in the account of the assessee firm. As the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the CIT(Appeals) that as it had made a full and true disclosure of all material facts, therefore, the A.O had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and reopened its concluded assessment after lapse of a period offour years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 7. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the original assessment in the case of the assessee was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3), dated 30.12.2010, wherein the income of the assessee firm was determined at Rs.18,72,060/-. As such, the reopening of the assessee's case by the A.O vide notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, dated 25.01.2014 is much beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year which had lapsed way ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....FCs namely; Magma Leasing Ltd, Magma Finance Ltd and Kotak Mahindra and has debited the abode interest as expenditure in its Profit& Loss Account. As the above NBFCs are neither banking companies engaged in banking business nor notified institutions u/s 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act, the payment of interest to them are subjected to TDS,u/s. 194A the Act. As the assessee has failed to do so , the said payment of interest is liable to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) and added back to the total income. Initially, for taking remedial action, the notice u/s 154 was issued for revising the income by adding the said interest payment of Rs.4,01,564/- but no response to this notice has been given by the assessee. In assessee's own case in A.Y.2009-10 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e parameters contemplated u/s. 40(b) of the Act. Be that as it may, we shall herein proceed with the maintainability of the objection raised by the assessee as regards the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O on the basis of the aforesaid "reasons to believe" which forms the very genesis for reopening of its case u/s.147 of the Act. 9. As stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, as the assessment in the case of the assessee was originally framed by the A.O u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2010, therefore, as per the mandate of the "first proviso" to section 147 of the Act, the same could not have been reopened after a lapse of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax ....