TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/- that upheld by Ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance to the facts and provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the additions so made and that upheld be kindly deleted and appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 2. Without prejudice to other grounds, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Act it be held that the addition of Rs. 4,80,000/- (Car Hiring Charges) so made by Ld. AO and that upheld by Ld. CIT(A) by invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act is incorrect and not in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Act. Accordingly, the additions so made and that upheld be kindly deleted and Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. Without prejudice to other grounds, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Act it be held that the addition of Rs. 17,98,518/- made by Ld. AO under Section 11 of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has fully allowed the same above thing (Section 11) in his assessment order passed u/s 250. But Ld. CIT(A) has allowed amount of Rs. 13,18,518/- instead of Rs. 17,98,518/- in his assessment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)(ii) read with Section 13(3)(cc) of the Act and withdrawing the benefit exemption under section 11 of the Act in respect of the aforesaid surplus amount of INR.17,98,518/- 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the above Assessment Order, dated 21/03/2022, challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings but granted partial relief to the Appellant by holding that denial of exemption under Section 11 should be restricted to the disallowance made under Section 13(1)(c)/(d) of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) by deleted addition/disallowance of INR.9,60,000/- [INR.4,80,000/- plus INR.4,80,000/-] and deleted the addition of INR.13,18,518/-. 5. Not being satisfied with the above relief granted by the CIT(A) the Appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 6. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant pressed into service Additional Ground No.1 raised in the present appeal challenging the va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot examined during the original assessment proceedings. Thus, the Learned Departmental Representative supported the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and the validity of the reassessment proceedings. It was further submitted that the Assessment Order, dated 30/12/2017, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 constituted sufficient tangible material for initiation reassessment proceedings. 8. In rejoinder the Learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant submitted that despite repeated requests copy of reasons recorded for reopening assessment were never furnished to the Appellant. Thus, denying to the Appellant the opportunity of filing objection against the initiation of reassessment proceedings. 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused on the record. 1. In our view, the Additional Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the Appellant are legal grounds which can be adjudicated after taking into consideration material already on record without inquiring into new facts. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383, the Additional Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ip between the trust and trustee. There is no averment or allegation to the effect that the Appellant had failed to disclose truly and full any material fact relevant for framing assessment for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that in absence of the aforesaid allegation/averment, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law being in violation of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. (supra) relevant extract of which reads as under: "3. Mr. Trivedi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the original assessment was made on 31-3-1995. It was for the assessment year 1992-93. It was made under section 143(3). He contended that under the proviso to section 147 of the Act, no action can be taken for reopening such assessment after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year 1992-93 on 31-3-1997 unless the respondent No. 1 has reason to believe that the assessee's income has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. In the present case, the affidavit and the reasons disclosed indicate that the department has purported to reopen the assessment only on the basis of change of opinion. This position is, in fact, conceded vide para 3 of the affidavit-in-reply dated 13-3- 2001. The reasons also do not spell out failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. In the circumstances, the deeming provision in Explanation 2 to section 147 has no application to the facts of the present case. Section 149 only prescribes the time-limit for giving notice. We are required in this case to look into the facts in order to ascertain whether the pre-condition for the issue of a valid notice under section 148 has been fulfilled or not. We are satisfied on the facts of the present case that reopening is sought on the basis of change of opinion. Further, even in the reasons, there is nothing to indicate that reopening is sought on the ground of the failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Conclusion: 6. In the circumstances, the impugned not....