TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y.2007- 08. The impugned order was originated from the order of the ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ,Hoshiarpur (in brevity the AO), order passed u/s 144/148 of the Act, date of order 28.03.2014. 2. The assessee took the following grounds which are as follows:- "1. That the assessment framed is illegal unjustified and uncalled for, notice issued u/s 148/147 of Income Tax Act is bad in law, especially when the matter of assessment is still alive owing to departmental appeal with Hon'able Punjab & Haryana High Court. 2. That the notice issued u/s 147/148 of Income Tax Act is bad in law especially when A.O. failed to record the proper reason and merely relying o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. That the assessee seeks the permissions to after, add amount any of the grounds of appeal. " 2.1. The assessee filed an additional ground which is reproduced as under: "1. That the notice issued u/s 147/148 of bad in law as it has been beyond 4 years after the completion of relevant assessment years." 3. Brieflystated the fact is the assessee is a civil contractor and filed its return on dated 13.03.2008 and return was processed u/s 143(1) on dated 23.05.2008 for the relevant assessment year. The reassessment notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act on dated 04.02.2009 reassessment was completed. The appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) was allowed reliefpartly. 4. The assessee filed an appeal before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 04.02.2009. 2. Subsequently assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed on 24.12.2009 at total income of Rs.67,71,213/- as against the returned income of Rs. 14,23,000/-, thereby making total addition of Rs.53,48,213/- in assessee's case under different heads. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were also initiated. 3. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order and (he Ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar vide order dated 28.10.2010 passed in appeal No. 447/09-10/CIT(A)/Jal, allowed relief of Rs.26,19.862'- to the assessee and confirmed the addition of Rs. 27,28,351/- made by the AO. The department as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e u/s 148 is issued to bring to tax the income of Rs.27,28,351/- and any other income, which subsequently comes to I he notice of the Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceeding." 6.1 The ld. Counsel further argued that the same issue cannot be agitated twice which was already in alive and sub-judice before the higher authority. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of "Duli Chand Singhania Vs. Asstt. CIT" [2004] 136 Taxman 725 (P & H). 6.2. Considered the order of Coordinate Bench in the case of "Apeejay Education Society vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-III, Jalandhar [2016] 73 taxmann.com54 (Amritsar-Trib.)/[2016] 47 ITR (T) 33 (Amritsar-Trib.) [25.02.2016]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... past history of the case. During assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07, the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 01.03.2011 has detailed addition made in the case of assessee @ 12% of contract receipts against 8% declared by the assessee. However, in the case of the assessee, ld. CIT(A) has upheld addition @ 12% on contract receipts." 8. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) had not been controverted the assessee's submission by bringing new facts. The ground of the assessee was adjudicated during passing of order. 9. We heard the rival submissions and relied on the documents available in the records and respectfully considered the judgments of the different apex courts. The assessee was assessed twice in same assessment year in same issue. I....