2023 (3) TMI 364

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounds:- Additional Jurisdictional /legal Ground (s) sought to be raised before Hon'ble ITAT 4. That impugned reopening action us 148 made on basis of incorrect /erroneous /non existing basis that assessee do not have PAN and is non return filer, whereas assessee has admittedly filed return on 30.09.2009 much before impugned reopening action made u/s 148 on 23.03.2016 , so impugned reopening is invalid and unlawfully made, so it is requested to be quashed and nullified; accordingly impugned assessment order and first appeal order may please be quashed as nullity being founded on invalid reasons; 5. That impugned reopening action u/s 148 made to assess alleged capital gains (difference of sale consideration and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... additional grounds. 5. On a careful consideration of above submissions I am of the view that the assessee is seeking admission and consideration of additional grounds which are legal in nature and can be adjudicated on the basis of material available on record and these legal grounds goes to the route of the matter. Therefore respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC (supra) and recent judgments of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case VMT Spinning Co. 389 ITR 326 & Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Venture Textiles 426 ITR 478. The additional grounds raised by the assessee are admitted for consideration and adjudication. The assessee application of additional ground is allowed. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. However he could not controvert two factual position viz. first that the assessee did file return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 much before the impugned reopening action u/s. 147 of the Act on 23.03.2016 and secondly the Ld. PCIT Meerut in the relevant column has put a seal on the approval order u/s. 151 of the Act issued on 17.03.2016. 9. On careful consideration of rival submissions first of all I note that the AO on 11.03.2016 recorded reasons for initiation of reassessment proceedings which are as follows:- Reasons for initiating proceedings u/s. 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 in the case of Sh. Ashok Kumar, S/o Sh. Kashi Ram, 78-D, Naveen Mandi Sthal Meerut for A.Y. 2009-10 As ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e on 30.09.2009 for A.Y. 2009-10 and computation of income clearly reveals that the assessee did file return of income within prescribed time limit and also offered long term capital gain income of Rs. 14,90,145/- for taxation and also paid due taxes etc. thereon. Therefore the basic premise on which the AO initiated reassessment proceedings has no legs to stand therefore the same is found to be void ab initio being bad in law. From the copy of the approval available at pages 6 and 7 of assessee paper book, I also note that the Ld. PCIT Meerut has put a seal above his signature which states "yes, I am satisfied that it is a fit case to issue notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act 1961". In my humble understanding the requirement of approval u/s. 1....