TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1602
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. That the notice issued by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 148 in contradiction of CBDT instruction NO. 225 dt. 04/03/21 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 2.That the notice u/s 148 issued by the Learned Assessing Officer on the basis of direction of Learned CIT (Appeal) is bad in law. 3. That the notice u/s 148 issued on the basis of reason to believe recorded by Learned CIT (Appeal) is bad in law. 4.That the notice u/s 148 has been issued by the Learned Assessing Officer for the same addition which were deleted by the CIT(A) against original assessment is bad in law. 5. That the notice issued u/s 148 issued by Learned Assessing Officer without bringing new tangible material on record a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The primary objection raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was that the case was selected for limited scrutiny, whereas the AO conducted complete scrutiny and made additions on issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, which was in utter violation of the CBDT Instructions. While adjudicating the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), directed deletion of the additions so made by the AO; however, at the same time, he further directed the AO to reopen the assessment by exercising the power u/s 150(1) of the Act. In pursuance of the directions of the Ld. CIT(A), the AO proceeded to reopen the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the same issues which were the subject matter of the original assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....limits provided u/s 251 of the Act. He contended that there is no ambiguity under the law that in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. He contended that the direction for re-opening is beyond the authority conferred upon the Ld. CIT(A) under the statute. He further contended that any action taken in pursuance of such an illegal direction would be a nullity in the eyes of law. 4. For the sake of clarity, section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act", for short) is reproduced as under: - "251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers- (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) ^72[, as the case may be,] shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement or reduction. Explanation.-In disposing of an appeal, the ^72[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals), may consider and decide any matter arising out of the proceedings in which the order appealed against was passed, notwithstanding that such matter was not raised before the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) ^72[, as the case may be,] by the appellant." 5. From the above, it is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) is impowered to confirm, reduce, en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Ld. CIT(A) is not under challenge before this Tribunal. As per the provisions of section 150(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer, in pursuance of a direction contained in an order passed by an authority in any proceedings under the Act by way of appeal, is empowered to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Act at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment. Therefore, so far as the action of the Assessing Officer is concerned, no fault can be found. The contention of the assessee that the action of the Assessing Officer was in utter disregard of the CBDT Instructions is misplaced, as the said Instructions were not issued keeping in view the provisions of section 150(1) of the Act. The case laws relied upon by the Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk details. The Revenue has not brought on record any material to controvert the evidences so furnished. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 14,08,400/- is unjustified. The assessee has duly discharged the primary onus cast upon him with regard to the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors. Thus, the impugned addition made and sustained by the authorities below cannot be sustained. I, therefore, hereby direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. The ground no. 7 of the appeal is allowed. 10. Coming to the disallowance of Rs. 1,16,417/- on account of commission income, the Assessing Officer has pointed out a discrepancy in the disclosure of profit and cash from business. As per the Assessing Officer, there is a differe....