AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereinafter referred to as the "Act") for Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The assessee in this appeal has agitated against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 14,40,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the act by treating the share capital and share premium received by the assessee as income of the assessee from unexplained sources. 3. The assessee in this appeal apart from contesting the validity of the additions made by the lower authorities on merits has also taken the legal ground that since the reassessment proceedings were initiated in this case, by issuing of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 03.09.2010, prior to the end of the limitation period to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, therefore, the assessment order pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... intimation u/s. 143(1) had been issued. We note that in the case of "Rajesh Javery Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd." (Supra) the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether both the conditions as were applicable prior to the amendment of section 147 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.1989, that is firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly, he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for his assessment of that year will be applicable post amendment of the provisions of section 147 of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en to section 147 after the expiry of the limitation fixed for framing the original assessment. The said decision has been further followed by the Hon'ble Madras High court in the case of CIT Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (supra) relevant part of the order of the Hon'ble Madras High court has reproduced as under: "5. Heard the counsel. In this case, Return of income was filed under Section 139(4) of the Act on 15.03.2000 and notice under Section 143(2) for framing assessment under Section 143(3) could have been issued upto 31.03.2000. Therefore, a valid Return of income was pending as on 15.03.2000. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 on 15.03.2000 when a valid Return under Section 139(4) was pending. In this case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s well. In any case if it is an order, it would be appealable under section 249 of the Act. Since the period of limitation starts from the date of intimation of such an order, it is imperative that such an order be communicated to the assessee. Had the Income-tax Officer passed any final order, it would have been communicated to the assessee within a reasonable period. In any case, what we find is that the note dated November 10, 1965, is merely an internal endorsement on the file without there being an indication if the refund application has been finally rejected. By merely recording that in his opinion, no credit for tax deducted at source is to be allowed, the Income-tax Officer cannot be said to have closed the proceedings finally. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter the expiry of limitation fixed for framing the original assessment. So far as the present case is concerned, we are of the view that it is evident that, faced with severe paucity of time, the Assessing Officer had attempted to travel the path of section 147 in the vain attempt to enlarge the time available for framing the assessment. This is not permissible in law. 7. Applying the principles enunciated in the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the Delhi High Court, cited supra, the Tribunal is right in coming to a conclusion that no action could be initiated under Section 147 of the Act, when there is a pendency of the Return before the Assessing Officer. The reasons given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and....