TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1738
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... As could be seen from the assessment order no addition has been made in respect of the above issue but addition has been made on other grounds. b) In the grounds of appeal filed in ground no. 5, the assessee has relied upon two judicial pronouncements to support the ground. c) Further reliance is placed upon the order of the decision of The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tractor and Farm equipment reported in 409 ITR 369. d) The First Appellate Authority in not accepting the decision of Bombay High court in the case of Jet Airways Private Limited reported in 331 ITR 236 has relied upon the decision of Karnataka High court and Punjab and Haryana High court. e) Further reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd reported in 88 ITR 192, wherein it has been held that when contrary views has been taken by two high courts when there is no jurisdictional high court decision, the decision favorable to the assessee has to be adapted. 4. Per contra the ld. DR Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT for the revenue relied upon the impugned order and read out paras 9.1 and 9.2 of the ld. CIT(A) order to bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reopening of the assessment was issued on one aspect, and in the course of reassessment proceedings another aspect was discovered, the reassessment order would be valid, only if, the aspect, which led to the reopening of assessment, continues to form part of the reassessed income. 23. This view, as has been correctly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee, has found resonance with at least three (3) High Courts, i.e., the Bombay High Court, the Gujarat High Court and the Delhi High Court in the following cases: (i) Jet Airways (I) Ltd.'s case (supra) (ii) Mohmed Juned Dadani's case (supra) (iii) Oriental Bank of Commerce's case (supra). 23.1 The only High Court, which has taken a contrary view, as it were, is the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of : Majinder Singh Kang's case (supra). 23.2 In my opinion, with respect, the Court, in rendering the judgment in Majinder Singh Kang's case (supra), ignored the fact that the provisions of Explanation 3 had to be read in conjunction with the main provision, and that, the said explanation cannot override the main provision. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation 3 - For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148." 9. The rival contentions pertain largely to the interpretation of Explanation 3. Section 147 and, in particular, Explanation 3 thereto was interpreted by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (supra). Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the said judgment are set out below: "20. Parliament, when, it enacted Explanation 3 to section 147 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 clearly had before it both the lines of precedent on the subject. The precedent dealt with two separate questions. When it effected the amendment by bringing in Explanation 3 to section 147, Parliament stepped in to correct what it regarded as an inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer could not make an assessment or reassessment on another issue which came to his notice during the proceedings. This interpretation will no longer hold the field after the insertion of Explanation 3 by the Finance (No.2) Act of 2009. 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 notice during the course of the proceedings. However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other....