TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the assessee in all these three appeals, therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ITA No. 1622/Hyd/2017 for AY 2010-11 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of distribution of pharmaceutical goods. It filed its return of income on 28.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 13,62,470/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 29.03.2012 determining the total income at Rs. 15,74,100/-. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act by recording the following reasons: Office of the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad F. No. ACIT/C-4(1)/Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) The assessee firm has shown a rent advance (old & New) of Rs. 10,00,000/- under current assets/debtors. But not offered any rental income to tax. 3. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act was issued to the assessee on 05.11.2014. The assessee in response to the same filed a letter stating that the return already filed for the AY 2010-11 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. 4. During the assessment proceedings the AO observed that assessee disclosed an additional income of Rs. 35 lakhs for AY 2009-10 during the course of survey proceedings conducted on 04.02.2009. But the assessee firm has shown the entire closing stock of Rs. 1,56,03,922/- (including the additional income of Rs. 35 lak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT(A), the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on both the counts. The assessee approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 29.11.2018 vide ITA No. 1622/Hyd/17, 1623/Hyd/2017 & 1624/Hyd/2017 for AY 2010-11 dismissed the appeals. Subsequently, the assessee filed an M.A stating that the legal ground raised by the assessee was not adjudicated. The Tribunal vide M.A. No. 27, 28 & 29/Hyd/2019 order dated 31.05.2019 recalled the order for the limited purpose of adjudicating the issue of validity of reopening of the assessment. Hence, the above three appeals are recalled matters for the limi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pened. He submitted that when the closing stock of FY 2008-09 has been shown as the opening stock of FY 2009-10, there is absolutely no error for which the AO could have reopened the assessment. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the reopening is not valid i. Madhurai Power Corporation vs. DCIT reported in 428 ITR 117 (Ap.HC) ii. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Orient craft Ltd. reported in 354 ITR 536 (Del.Hc) iv. CIT vs. Atul kumar Swami reported in 362 ITR 693 (Del.HC) v. Pr. CIT vs. G and G Pharma India Ltd. reported in 384 ITR 147 vi. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 001(Del.HC) vii. Prakriy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-11 An audit objection only the reason for reopening of assessment. Appellant relied on the case of DCIT Vs. Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd., ITA No. 931/Ahd./2011 (ITAT, Ahmedabad). The following case Is not applicable to the present case. In the present case, there was a genuine issue and mistake in the return filed by the appellant which was overseen by mistake. Once this was brought to light, the Assessing Officer followed all the rules of the Income Tax Act to reopen the case and passed an order rectifying the escapement." 11. It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that there is no mistake in the return filed by the assessee and the value of closing stock for FY 2008-09 has been taken as the opening stock of the curren....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s escapement of income. In the present case the note forming part of the return clearly mentioned and described the nature of the receipt under a non-compete agreement. The reasons for the notice under section 147 nowhere mentioned that the revenue came up with any other fresh material warranting reopening of assessment. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that mere conclusion of the proceedings under section 143(1) ipso facto does not bring invocation of powers for reopening the assessment. We are satisfied that the Tribunal's reasons are justified and do not call for any interference. 13. The various other decisions relied on by ld. counsel for the assessee also supports his case to proposition that in absence of an....