TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1477
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8,41,786 135,28,782 2013-14 83,28,008 104,26,768 2015-16 - 101,80,490 3. Against this, the assessee went in appeals before the CIT(Appeals) challenging the additions on merits. The CIT(A), however, confirmed the order of AO. Against this, the assessee is in appeals before us. 4. The assessee has raised common grounds of appeal in all these years and there is only change in figures. The grounds of appeal in ITA No.3384/B/2018 are reproduced below :- 1. The impugned Appellate order dated: 24-10-2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Bangalore-7 is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,41,99,928/- which was estimated by the AO by adopting 8% Net Profit Margin Method based on the alleged voluntary statement of the Appellant made u/s. 133A of the Act and also on the Post Survey Statements recorded on oath u/s. 131 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had declared 8% Margin of Profit subject to deductions and depreciation which was neither considered by the AO nor by the Ld. CIT(A). 82,22,964/- (exclusive of interest charged u/s. 234B and 23....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact that the AO has issued the Notice u/s. 148 of the Act without any material evidence as to the escapement of income chargeable to tax and therefore the Notice so issued u/s. 148 of the Act is not maintainable in law and the same is liable to be quashed. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing. Common main grounds raised in all the appeals i.e., ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018: 5. The ld. AR submitted that in the assessment year under consideration, the assessee declared profit as per books of account. However, it was rejected by the AO and estimated it as follows :- A.Y. Turnover Declared Percentage Percentage age of Addition Taxable Income Declared Additions on enhanced percentage Disallowance of Interest Assessed Income by the AO 2010-11 112,26,24,898 5.67% 8% 6,36,35,113 2,41,94,928 89,09,701 9,67,39,742 2011-12 62,30,57,675 6.42% 8% 3,99,77,626 80,47,903 1,35,28,782 6,15,54,311 2012-13 39,62,83,279 6.29% 8% 2,49,07,920 48,41,786 1,35,28,782 4,32,78,488 2013-14 30,62,50,788 4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or other; (b) freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs". 8. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 83 ITR 303 (Del) held as follows :- "It was true that the assessee itself had included that dividend income in its return for the year in question, but there was no estoppel in the Income-tax Act and the assessee having itself challenged the validity of taxing the dividend during the year of assessment in question, it must be taken that it had resiled from the position which it had wrongly taken while filing the return. Quit apart from it, it was incumbent on the income-tax department to find out whether a particular income was assessable in the particular year or not. Merely because the assessee wrongly included the income in its return for a particular year, it could not confer jurisdiction on the department to tax that income in that year even though legally such income did not pertain to that year. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the investment was made in sister concern, Smilex Labs P. Ltd. It is also not disputed that investment is for the purpose of business of assessee as it is having inter-related business. As held by Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. 288 ITR 1 (SC), the expression "for the purpose of business" includes expenditure voluntarily incurred for commercial expediency, and it is immaterial if a third party also benefits thereby. The lower authorities should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the lower authorities should have enquired as to whether the interest free loan was given to the sister company as a measure of commercial expediency, and if it was, it should have been allowed. The expression "commercial expediency" is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure, if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency." 16. It was the plea of assessee that amount advanced to sister concern was by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of time 2. The Notice u/s. 148 dtd: 27-03-2017 was a Second Notice and the first Notice was issued on 21-11-2016 on which no Assessment was completed and hence the second notice dtd: 27- 03-2017 is not maintainable during the pendency of first Notice dtd: 21-11-2016 3. The Proposal seeking approval for issue of Notice u/s. 148 was u/s. 147(c) of the Act which is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and hence the proposal itself is bad and non-est in law. 4. The approval granted by the Pr. CIT vide letter dtd: 24-03- 2017 itself is bad in law since the said sanction was accorded without application of mind." 22. Further, the assessee has filed petition for admission of additional grounds explaining the reasons for filing the additional grounds. The ld. AR submitted that these additional grounds are very necessary for the cause of rendering substantial justice and equity and there is no necessity of investigation of any fresh facts so as to adjudicate these additional grounds and requested to admit the additional grounds. He relied on the following judgments in support of his arguments :- (i) National Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an order sheet entry on 27.9.2017 stating that the case was fixed for hearing on 06.10.2017 at 11.45 am. However, it is seen from the notice issued u/s. 143(2) dated 26.9.2017 that the case was fixed for hearing on 05.10.2017 at 11.30 am. Further it is noted that appearance on scheduled date was neither on 05.10.2017 or on 06.10.2017. The AO made the order sheet entry on 08.11.2017 as follows :- 31. In the present case, it is to be noted that there was no valid issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Therefore, the assessment order framed thereafter is bad in law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon, 321 ITR 362 (SC) wherein it was held that issue of legally valid notice u/s. 143(2) is mandatory for assuming jurisdiction to frame scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and absence of a valid notice u/s. 143(2) is not a curable defect. This ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Hotel Blue Moon (supra)was reiterated by the Supreme Court once again in the case of CIT v. Laxmandas Khandelwal, 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC). The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as follows :- "5. At the outset, it must be stated that out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the Revenue, since we do not see any reason to restrict the scope and meaning of the expression "so far as may be, apply". In our view, where the assessing officer in repudiation of the return filed under Section 158- BC(a) proceeds to make an enquiry, he has necessarily to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143." 6. The question, however, remains whether Section 292BB which came into effect on and from 01.04.2008 has effected any change. Said Section 292BB is to the following effect :- "292BB. Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances .- Where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or cooperated in any inquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment, it shall be deemed that any notice under any provision of this Act, which is required to be served upon him, has been duly served upon him in time in accordance with the provisions of this Act and such assessee shall be precluded from taking any objection in any proceeding or inquiry under this Act that the notice was - (a) Not served upon him; or (b) Not served upon him in time; or (c) Served upon him in an improper manner: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrived at were correct. We, therefore, see no reason to take a different view in the matter." 32. In the present case, admittedly, there was no proper service of notice u/s. 143(2) issued to the assessee. In such circumstances, the assessment order framed thereafter is bad in law. 33. Further, the date mentioned in the order sheet entry dated 27.9.2017 for fixing the case for hearing in response to 143(2) notice is not tallying with the date of hearing mentioned in the notice issued u/s. 143(2) on 26.9.2017. On these grounds, we are of the opinion that there is no valid issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and the assessment for AY 2010-11 is bad in law. 34. On merits of additional grounds raised on 10.02.2021, the ld. AR drew our attention to 148 notice dated 27.3.2017 which is placed in PB page 4 of the PB of the additional rejoinder and submitted that though the date was mentioned as 27.3.2017, but it was despatched on 27.6.2017. The time limit for issue of notice is 6 years from the end of assessment year, ending on 31.3.2017 the assessment year involved being AY 2010-11. Since it was despatched on 27.6.2017, the issue of notice u/s. 148 on 27.6.2017 is barred by lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pleted u/s. 143(3) of the Act. We have gone through notice u/s. 148 dated 27.3.2017 which is as follows :- 40. The purported notice said to have been despatched to the assessee on 27.6.2017 is seen from the copy furnished by the ld. DR before us. She also filed a copy of letter dated 17.02.2021 stating that no letter was despatched to assessee on 27.6.2017, however a letter was despatched to the assessee on 4.7.2017 for which the ld. DR produced the dispatch register. 41. On going through the above documents, we are of the opinion that the notice issued u/s. 148 dated 27.3.2017 left the office of the DCIT Circle 7(2)(1) on 27.6.2017 as seen from the dispatch seal. It might have actually been sent by Speed Post on 4.7.2017. Now the question before us is whether notice u/s. 148 was issued within the time limit prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act. In the present case, the impugned notice dated 27.3.2017 though said to be despatched from the department on 27.6.2017, was actually sent by speed post to the assessee on 4.7.2017. It is apparent that though signature to the said notice was affixed by the Officer on 27.3.2017, actually it was despatched to the assessee on 4.7.2017 and mere ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st centre only on 4.7.2017, the date of issue of such notice would be 4.7.2017 only and not 27.3.2017 or 27.6.2017, which is clearly beyond 6 years from the end of relevant assessment year 2010-11 i.e., 31.3.2011 which is barred by limitation and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that reassessment framed vide notice dated 148 dated 27.3.2017 is bad in law. 44. Next argument of the ld. AR is that notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued prior to the date of obtaining approval from the competent authority which was accorded on 23.3.2017. Therefore, the notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 issued without approval is bad in law, consequently the assessment framed thereon is also bad in law. Further he submitted that the notice issued u/s. 148 on 21.11.2016 has not resulted in framing of assessment, hence second notice u/s. 148 cannot be issued. He relied on the judgment of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. The Archdiocesan Board of Education v. DCIT in ITA No.585/Bang/2019 dated 19.07.2019 and also drew our attention to the copy of 1st notice u/s 148 of the Act on 21.1.2016, which is as follows :- 45. The ld. DR submitted that only noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een passed, it must be deemed to have been concluded and hence, the assessment order dated 27/3/1997 is invalid. Before answering the points for consideration, it would be necessary to refer to the documents annexed to the memorandum of appeal. 13. It is seen from the documents annexed, that as per Annexure-B dated 24.10.1992 statement of return of income as disclosed on 31.3.1992 at the time of search under Section 132(4) of the Act is given. In the said statement it is noted that agricultural income is not included since the same was being worked out and was to be furnished at the time of filing a revised return. Though the said document is dated 24.10.1992, it has not been filed in the Income Tax Office. In the absence of there being any return filed, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued dated 14.12.1992 stating that, return has to be filed in the prescribed form within 30 days from the date of service of notice. Between the date of service of notice dated 14.12.1992 and the receipt of notice on 24.12.1992 the appellant has filed Return of Income on 22.12.1992 as per Annexure-D. After receipt of notice dated 24.12.1992 reply was given by the petitioner on 29.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e completed by 31.3.1994. But in the present case a return was filed only on 22.12.1992 after issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said return was therefore, filed subsequent to the issuance of notice dated 14.12.1992. Thereafter, on consideration of the return filed by the assessee on 22.12.1992, notice under Section 148 was issued on 24.11.1994. In response to which, a revised return was filed on 20.10.1995. On the facts of the present case, it becomes clear that as on the date the first notice was issued, there was no return which had been filed by the appellant. If a return is not filed within time prescribed under Section 139(1) or within the time allowed under Section 142(1), a notice can be issued under Section 148 seeking a return to be filed in the prescribed form as it would be deemed to be a case of income escaping assessment, particularly when the total income is above the total limit. After the filing of his return on 22.12.1992, another notice was sent on 24.11.1994 pursuant to which the assessee filed a revised return declaring revised total income of Rs. 4,57,934/- on 20.10.1995. In fact, in the return filed on 22.12.1992, the assessee had declared a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in that case that the assessee in that case declared income of Rs. 3 Lakhs in course of search but there was no return of income filed by the assessee and therefore, notice u/s. 148 was issued on 14.12.1992 which was served on the assessee on 24.12.1992. This is also noted by Hon'ble High Court in that case that even before service of notice on 24.12.1992, the assessee filed return of income on 22.12.1992 declaring income of Rs. 3 Lakhs. In view of these facts, it is noted by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in that case in para 17 of the judgment reproduced above that the circumstances under which the two notices have been sent have to be borne in mind. The Hon'ble High Court has noted that the first notice dated 14.12.1992 was issued u/s. 148, when there was no return filed and the said notice was validly issued. This is also noted by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court that when return was filed on 22.12.1992 even before the service of the said notice, the purpose of sending such a notice was fulfilled but there is no bar in law to send a notice u/s. 148 of the Act after the return dated 22.12.1992 was filed by the assessee. It is also noted by Hon'ble Karnataka High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 139 (1) of I T Act and declaration of income of Rs. 3 lacs in course of search. This is also a fact of that case that even before the service of the first notice u/s 148 on 24.12.1992, the assessee had filed return of income on 22.12.1992 and because of these facts, a categorical finding is given by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the same Para 17 as reproduced above that notice dated 24/11/1994 is in fact not a "second notice", under Section 148 of the Act during the pendency of an earlier or first notice under Section 148 of the Act. In that case, Hon'ble High Court was of the view that first notice stood disposed of the moment the return of income was filed by the assessee because the first notice was for asking the assessee to file return of income because no return was filed by the assessee even after expiry of time permitted u/s 139 (1) and therefore, the second notice was held to be not during the pendency of an earlier or first notice under Section 148 of the Act. But in the present case, the reasons recorded for both notices are same as noted above being non eligibility of the assessee for exemption u/s 11 and section 10 (23C) (vi). Hence in the facts of the prese....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a notice was issued by the AO to the said partnership firm also u/s. 158BC of the IT Act. On 20.11.2000, Block assessment order was passed by the AO in the case of the firm and in the same, it was held that in the case of the firm, Nil income reported by the firm should be accepted and this was also directed to initiate proceedings against the Appellant for the assessment of undisclosed income for the block period. Pursuant to the order dated 20.11.2000 passed by the AO in the case of the firm, a fresh notice u/s. 158BD r.w.s. 158BC was issued to the assessee who was the partner of that firm. Since in that case, there was no issue regarding notice u/s. 148 and regarding the issue of two notices also, it is seen that the first notice was issued u/s. 158BC whereas the second notice was issued u/s. 158BD and therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is also not applicable in the facts of present case. 11. The remaining judgements cited by ld. DR of revenue are of various other High Courts i.e. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Kerala High Court and hence, before examining the applicability of these two judgments, we feel it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mently contended that such withdrawal of notice of reopening must be deduced from facts and attendant circumstances. His contention was that the Revenue had, all along, intended to withdraw the notice and the fact, that such notice was abandoned, was sufficient to establish withdrawal thereof. We, however, hold a slightly different belief. A notice of reopening which is once issued would remain in operation unless it is specifically withdrawn, quashed or gets time barred. First instance would be at the volition of the Assessing Officer as the person who had issued the notice. He can recall the notice for valid reasons and may even issue a fresh notice which is not impermissible in law. Nevertheless, there has to be an action of withdrawal. Mere intention, a stated intention or even an intention which is otherwise put in practice cannot be equated with withdrawal of the notice. By mere intention to abandon the proceedings arising out of the notice, the Assessing Officer cannot bring about the desired result of withdrawing the notice. The notice was either withdrawn or is stood as it is, may be without any follow up action on part of the Assessing Officer. 18. The material o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....initio. 13. Regarding the reliance placed by ld. DR of revenue on two other judgments of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Kerala High Court, we would like to observe that we find force in the submissions of ld. AR of assessee that in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (supra), if in case of taxing provision, two reasonable constructions are possible, the construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. Hence in our considered opinion even if these two judgments of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Kerala High Court are found to be applicable in the present case, then also, we have to follow the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court which favours the assessee and therefore, we do not examine the applicability of these two judgments cited by ld. DR of revenue having been rendered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Kerala High Court. In view of this decision that the assessment order is void-ab-initio, other grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal have become infructuous and no adjudication is called for." 47. Being so, in our opinion, no furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same for adjudication for the AY 2011-12. 52. On merits, the ld. AR submitted that there was no notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Non-issue of 143(2) notice is bad in law. He relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra) and CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal, 417 ITR 325 (SC). 53. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that as per the order sheet entry dated 26.9.2017, the AR of assessee Shri G.S. Reddy appeared on 26.9.2017 and filed written submission stating that return filed vide Acknowledgement No.304084331300911 dated 30.9.2011 may be considered as return in response to notice u/s. 148 and the same was signed by the AR of assessee. Further it was submitted that as per order sheet entry, the notice u/s. 143(2) has been issued along with show cause notice fixing the hearing on 6.10.2017 and she filed copies of order sheet entries. 54. We have carefully gone through the relevant order sheet entry dated 26.9.2017 and 27.9.2017. However, physical copy of notice u/s. 143(2) is not made available to the Bench. Being so, under these circumstances, we are not in a position to hold that there was issue of notice u/s. 143(2) to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me chargeable to tax has been underassessed; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;" 3.2 The Pr.CIT without application of mind has mechanically approved the case for issue of notice u/s. 148 on the basis of the approval submitted u/s. 147(c). The Pr.CIT was not justified to accord the approval without fulfilling the conditions laid down u/s. 147(c) of the Act in as much as .the income chargeable to tax was not under-assessed, not assessed at a loo lower rate, no excess of relief was claimed and no excessive loss was claimed since the AO has not completed the Original Assessment upon filing the Original Return of Income. 3.3 The Appellant Company begs to place reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of United Electrical Co. P. Ltd v/s. CIT and others (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del), wherein it has been held that the competent authority is not entitled to grant approval causally or in a routine manner without application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailable to us. 59. We have gone through the another proposal sent by the AO to the Pr.CIT to accord permission for reopening the assessment which was sent by AO on 14.3.2017. As seen from the proposal approved by the Pr. CIT on 20.3.2017, it was approved u/s. 147(b) of the Act as mentioned in the column of the proposal, and not u/s. 147(c) of the Act. Being so, we do not find any merit in the argument of the ld. AR that the proposal was approved by the Pr. CIT u/s. 147(c) of the Act. Therefore, this ground of the assessee is rejected. 60. The next additional ground in this appeal is with regard to the fact that the first notice issued u/s. 148 dated 27.3.2017 has not culminated with the assessment. For the purpose of clarity, we reproduce a copy of notice dated 21.11.2016 for AY 2011-12 :- 61. After going through both the notices issued u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 and 27.3.2017, we are of the opinion that the first notice dated 21.11.2016 for AY 2011-12 has not culminated with the framing of assessment or closure of further action for framing the assessment in accordance with law. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the order of Tribunal in M/s. The Archdiocesan Board of Edu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reopening of assessment. Being so, we admit the same for adjudication for the AY 2011-12. 68. For this assessment year also, there is no service of notice u/s. 143(2) on the assessee. Therefore, as held in the earlier assessment year 2011- 12, we quash the assessment in the absence of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act served on the assessee. 69. The next additional ground in this appeal is with regard to the fact that the first notice issued u/s. 148 dated 27.3.2017 has not culminated with the assessment. For the purpose of clarity, we reproduce a copy of notice dated 21.11.2016 for AY 2012-13 :- 70. The ld. DR submitted that no such notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued to the assessee and the notice u/s. 148 dated 23.11.2016 only was issued to the assessee, after getting approval from the competent authority. 71. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that there was issue of notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 as reproduced above and there is no merit in the argument of the ld. DR that that there is no such notice dated 21.11.2016 and only there was a notice dated 23.11.2016. Being so, we are of the opinion that the first notice dated 21.11.2016 for AY ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The ld. DR opposed admission of the additional grounds. 76. After hearing both the parties, these additional grounds being legal grounds, go to the root of the matter of reopening of assessment. Being so, we admit the same for adjudication. 77. For this assessment year also, there is no service of notice u/s. 143(2) on the assessee. Therefore, as held in the earlier assessment year 2011- 12, we quash the assessment in the absence of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act served on the assessee. 78. The next additional ground in this appeal is with regard to the fact that the first notice issued u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 has not culminated with the assessment and the second notice dated 27.3.2017 is not maintainable since no assessment was completed on the basis of first notice dated 21.11.2016. For the purpose of clarity, we reproduce a copy of notice dated 21.11.2016 for AY 2013-14 :- 79. The ld. DR submitted that no such notice u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 was issued to the assessee and the notice u/s. 148 dated 23.11.2016 only was issued to the assessee, after getting approval from the competent authority. 80. After hearing both the parties, we are of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a change of opinion since all the issues were considered in the Original Assessment dtd: 17-03- 2016." 86. The assessee has filed petition as in earlier year pleading admission of above additional grounds placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation (supra), Hotel Blue Moon (supra) and Shriram Chits (Karnataka) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The ld. DR opposed admission of the additional grounds. 87. After hearing both the parties, these additional grounds being legal grounds, go to the root of the matter of reopening of assessment. Being so, we admit the same for adjudication. 88. For this assessment year also, there is no service of notice u/s. 143(2) on the assessee. Therefore, as held in the earlier assessment year 2011- 12, we quash the assessment in the absence of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act served on the assessee. 89. The next additional ground in this appeal is with regard to the fact that the first notice issued u/s. 148 dated 21.11.2016 has not culminated with the assessment. For the purpose of clarity, we reproduce a copy of notice dated 21.11.2016 for AY 2015-16 :- 90. The ld. DR submitted that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... There are certain points in connection with the return of income submitted by you on 15.10.2010 vide Acknowledgement number 173218811151010, for the assessment year 2010-11 on which I would like some further information .. 2. You are hereby required to attend my office on 05/10/2017 at 11:30 AM either in person or by a representative duly authorized in writing in this behalf or produce or cause there to be produced at the said time any documents, accounts and any other evidence on which you may rely in support of the return filed by you. (PRITHVIRAJ, I.R.S) Deputy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7(1) (2), Bangalore. TOHED 27/01 24356343502IN Document 2 Dated: 26/09/2017 In response to reminder notice dated 21/09/2017 AR Shri G S Reddy, ITP attended and filed a written submission stating that return filed vide acknowledgement no. 173218811151010 dated 15.10.2010 may be considered as the return of income for the notice issued u/s 148 and same has been considered and order-sheet noting has been made. AO AR 26/09/2012 26/9/17 GARENS 26.9.17 1 1 Document 3 ORDER SHEET NOTING Dated: 27/09/2017 Notice under section 143(2) has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, Bangalore. Whereas I have reason to believe that your income in respect of which you are assessable to tax for the assessment year 2010-11 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income- tax Act. I, therefore, propose to assess/reassess the income under section 147 for the ud assessment year and hereby require you to deliver to me a return in the prescribed m of your income in respect of which you are assessable for the said assessment year hin 30 days from the date of service of this notice. afun DESPATCHED farias/Date ... 25/6/17 (PRITHVIRAJ, I.F Commissioner of Income-T Circle - 7(1) (2), Bangalı Pep * Document 7 Annexure I M/s VVD Constructions Private Limited A.Y. 2010-11 Reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment M/s VVD Constructions Pvt Ltd is assessed at this circle and for the AY 2010-11 the assessee company has filed a return of income on 15/10/2010 declaring Rs. 6,36,35,113/ - as total income. There was no assessment order passed for this year u/s 143(3) of the IT Act. The total turnover of the company for FY 2009-10 was Rs. 62,30,57,675/ -. On 27/09/2016 a survey under section 133A of the Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a business but also the rationalization of its administration and modernization of its machinery; 1. it may include measures for the preservation of the business and for the protection of its assets and property from expropriation, coercive process or assertion of hostile title; 2. it may also comprehend payment of statutory dues and taxes imposed as a pre-condition to commence or for carrying on of a business; 3. it may comprehend many other acts incidental to the carrying on of a business. However, wide the meaning of the expression may be, its limits are implicit in it. The purpose shall be for the purpose of the business, that is to say, the expenditure incurred shall be for the carrying on of the business and the assessee shall incur it in his capacity as a person carrying on the business. It cannot include sunis spent by the assessee as agent of a third party, whether the origin of the agency is voluntary or statutory; in that event, he pays the amount on behalf of another and for a purpose unconnected with the business. In the present case, the company, as a statutory agent of the deceased owners of the shares, paid the sums payable by the legal represents of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 5.147/ACIT-C-7(1)(2)/ 16-17 Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 7(1)(2), Room No. 241 2nd Floor, BMTC Building, Koramangala 80 Feet Road Bangalore - 560 095 Date: 21.11.2016 PAN No: AACCV5142K X. s. VVD Constructions (P) Ltd · C-301, Ramky utsav, Seenappa Budavane, New BEL Layout Whereas I have reason to believe that your income in respect of which you are assessable to tax for the assessment year 2010-11 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income - tax Act. I, therefore, propose to assess/reassess the income under section 147 for the said assessment year and hereby require you to deliver to me a return in the prescribed form of your income in respect of which you are Assessable for the said assessment year within 30 days from the date of service of this notice. (PRITHVIRAJ, I.R.S) Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2), Bangalore CERTIFIED COPY H. GURUSWAMY (Authorised Representative Document 9 I.T.N.S - 34 8 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 4: : 47 ACIT-C-7(1)(2)/16-17 Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 7(1)(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of which Tou are assessable to tax for the assessment year 2013-14 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income - tax Act. I, therefore, propose to assess/reassess the income under section 147 j :: the said assessment year and hereby require you to deliver to me a rum in the prescribed form of your income in respect of which you are assessable for the said assessment year within 30 days from the date of service of this notice. (PRITHVIRAJ, I.R.S) Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2), Bangalore t of rad .* CERTIFIED COPY 30 H. GURUSWAMY (Authorised Representative Document 12 10 FORM FOR RECORDING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 AND FOR OBTAINING THE APPROVAL OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-7(1), BANGALORE 1. Name and address of the assessee : M/s. VVD Constructions (P) Ltd # C-301, Ramky utsav, Seenappa Budavane, New BEL Layout, BANGALORE 2. Permanent Account No. : AACCV5142K 3. Status : Company 4. District/Circle/Range : Circle - 7(1)(2) 5. Asst. Year in respect of which it is proposed to issue notice u/s. 148 : A.Y(s) -2013-14 6. The Quantum of income which has escape ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reopening the proposal under section 147 has been referred to The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-7(1), Bangalore. The facts of the case - The assessee is into the business of execution of contract work on the construction of roads and dams of Government of Karnataka. Based on the information a survey under section 133A has been conducted at registered office of the company on 27/09/2016 and information has been gathered. Based on the information a statement u/s 133A has been recorded on 27/09/2016. In the statement Managing Director of the Company Shri Makireddy Venkat Reddy declared net profit margin at 8% of the total turnover. Based on the information proposal under section 147 has been initiated and sent for the approval of The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-7(1), Bangalore. AO Dated: 23/11/2016 In this regard the approval has been granted on 23/11/2016. Based on the approval the notice u/s 148 has been issued on same day 23/11/2016 and same has been served on the assessee AO Document 14 I.T.N.S - 31 11 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 1 .-- ACIT-C-7(1)(2)/ 16-17 : -: AACCV5142K Office of the Assistant C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not stand in the way of initiating proceedings u/s. 147 : Not Applicable 11 Reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment .. As per Annexure - I (PRITHVIRAJ, I.R.S) Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2), Bangalore M/S VVD Constructions Pvt Ltd (PAN-AACCV5142K) for A. Y. 2015-16 Yes. I am satisfied on the 12. Whether Addl.CIT is satisfied that it is fit case for issue notice u/s 148 on the basis of reasons recorded by the AO. reasons recorded that , it is a fit case for some of notice up 148 of the IT Act. S' 23/11/2016 (Vikas K. Suryawanshi, IRS), Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7(1), Bengaluru. Date :- Whether Pr.CIT is satisfied that it is fit case for issue notice u/s 148 on the basis of reasons recorded by the AO. 13. Document 16 ORDER SHEET NOTING M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED (PAN: AACCV5142K) AY 2015-16 Dated: 17.11.2016 M/s VVD Construction Private Limited is assessed at this circle and for the assessment year 2015-16 the assessee case has been proposed for the approval under section 147 for the concealment of Income. In this regard after recording the reasons for reopening....