TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6(2), Chennai for the assessment year 2010-11 u/s. 143(3) r.ws. 147 r.w.s.92CA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') vide order dated 29.01.2018. 2. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to assumption of jurisdiction for reopening of assessment when additions was made on account of issue other than the one included in the reason for reopening and no addition is made for which reason was recorded for reopening for alleged escapement of income. For this, assessee has raised the following grounds:- Reopening is bad in law 2. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment as correct. 2.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (appeals) ought....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s completed u/s 143(3) determining a income of Rs. 2,27,98,06,950/-. Information from the ITO, Corporate Ward 3(4), was received. From the information, the assessee company during the F.Y relevant to the A.Y 2010-11 has sold two properties to M/s Velmurugan Shelters P Ltd. The details are as under: Sl. No. Name of the Seller Name of the purchaser Survey No. Extent of land Guideline value in Rs. Market leave in Rs. 1 M/s. Sical Logistics Ltd M/s. Velmurugan Shelters P Ltd 462/2 27 cents 9417600 4289220 2 M/s. Sical Logistics Ltd M/s. Velmurugan Shelters P Ltd 461 part New S.No.461/1A1A 4 acres 11 cents 71678400 47250780 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to reasons recorded, no reassessment order for making addition of other income can be made. Accordingly, reassessment order is bad in law and hence, to be quashed. The ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways reported in [2011] 331 ITR 236. The ld.counsel stated that this judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways, supra was followed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras exactly on identical circumstances in the case of Martech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT reported in [2017] 394 ITR 0733, wherein Hon'ble High Court held as under:- 21.1. To put it plainly, the purported income discovered subsequently during the course of reassess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... V. Jet Airways - [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom). 23.4. The relevant observations made in this behalf are extracted hereafter: "....However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147. An Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and cannot be construed to override it or render the substance and core nugatory. Section 147 has this effect that the Assessing Officer has to assess or reassess the income ("such income") which escaped assessment and which was the basis of the formation of belief and if he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which, comes to his n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td., vs. DCIT, supra and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways, supra. On perusal of Section 147 of the Act would show that, if, the Revenue makes an attempt to reopen the assessment, all that the Assessing Officer has to show is that, AO has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the concerned assessment year and while doing so, AO is also empowered to assess any other income, which has escaped assessment and, which comes to AO's notice, subsequently, albeit, during course of the assessment proceedings. Careful reading of Section 147 of the Act would show that it empowers an Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment, if, AO has reason to believe, that any income chargeable....