TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1088
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 23.11.2018 for assessment year 2011-12. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. That, the order passed u/s 263 by the Pr. CIT-I is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as the issues on which Pr. CIT-I wants to revise and reassess the assesse are not the subject matter of reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3). 2. That, the order passed u/s 263 by the Pr. CIT-I is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as the issues on which Pr. CIT-I wants to exercise revisional jurisdiction bars by limitation. 3. That, the order passed u/s 263 by the Pr. CIT-I is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing Officer to reassess the income of the assessee afresh after examining the relevant details and other issues. 10. That, the assessee craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any objections herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the course of hearing." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of trading of electrical wires and cables had filed her return of income for the assessment year 2011-12, declaring an income of Rs.4,69,130/-. Observing, that the assessee during the year under consideration had made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 27,15,500/- in her Savings bank account with State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, the Assessing Officer reopened....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the revenue. 5. Backed by his aforesaid conviction the Pr. CIT issued a 'Show cause' notice (SCN), dated 04.02.2021 to the assessee, therein, calling upon her to explain as to why the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 23.11.2018 may not be revised. As the explanation of the assessee did not find favor with the Pr. CIT, therefore, he vide his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 22.02.2021 held the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act, dated 23.11.2018 as erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. Aggrieved with the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Section 263 of the Act, dated 22.02.2021 the assessee has carried the matter in appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The decisions of the Kerala High Court in Travancore Cements Ltd. (supra) and of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vipan Khanna (supra) would, therefore, no longer hold the field. However, insofar as the second line of authority is concerned, which is reflected in the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Shri Ram Singh (supra), Expln. 3 as inserted by Parliament would not take away the basis of that decision. The view which was taken by the Rajasthan High Court was also taken in another judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H) : (1989) 46 Taxman 315 (P&H). The decision in Atlas Cycle Industries (supra) held that the AO did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the reassessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which, comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings. However, if after issuing a notice under s. 148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other income. If he intends to do so, a fresh notice under s. 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee. We have approached the issue of interpretation that has arisen for decision in these appeals, both as a matter of first principle, based on the lan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re shall be no order as to costs." 8. Backed by our aforesaid deliberations, we are of the considered view, that now when in absence of any addition having been made as regards the issue on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopened, the AO stood divested of his jurisdiction of making any independent additions/disallowances, therefore, no infirmity could be related to the order passed by him under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 23.11.2018, for the reason, that he had failed to have carried out verifications as regards the unsecured loans of Rs.76,63,484/- (supra) that were raised by the assessee during the year from seven parties, and also failed to disallow under Sec. 40(a)(ia) her claim for deduction of interest ....