TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised 3 grounds in its memorandum of appeal. The assessee has also raised an additional ground vide its petition dated 10.07.2026. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR did not press Ground Nos.1 & 2 and its sub-grounds, hence the same are dismissed. The Ld.AR has only argued the Ground No.3 & its sub-grounds on merits and Ground 4 raised in the additional ground on legal issue. 3. The assessee has raised the following legal ground in its Additional Ground of Appeal vide Ground No.4: "Ground No.4 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment order is bad in law, owing to the fact that no addition was in the reas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad allegedly suppressed the variable component of professional fees payable to doctors, which was linked to the gross turnover. It was noticed that while the assessee had debited fixed professional fees of Rs. 32,64,29,562/-, the variable component amounting to Rs. 2,33,42,650/- had allegedly not been accounted for in the return of income. Based on the said information, the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the reassessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w..s 144B of the Act. However, instead of making any addition on account of the alleged suppression of variable component of professional fees paid to doctors, the AO disallowed interest expenditure of Rs. 4,02,20,696/- and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Martech Peripherals (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [(2017) 81 taxmann.com 130 (Mad.)], wherein, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2010] 195 Taxman 117 (Bombay HC) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT, [2011] 12 taxmann.com 74 (Delhi HC), it was held that the AO can travel beyond the reasons recorded for reopening only if an addition is first made on the issue forming the basis of the reopening. 10. The Ld. AR also relied on the decisions of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in Shri Annakodiraj v. ITO (ITA No. 4121/CHNY/2025) and ACIT v. Shri Kamatchipuram Vellingiri Jayaraman (ITA No. 2777/CHNY/2024). It was therefore contended that, since no addition wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sess other escaped income only when an addition is made on the issue forming the basis for reopening. Where the very reason for reopening does not survive and no addition is made thereon, the reassessment cannot be sustained by making additions on altogether different issues. 13. The AO, in the impugned assessment order dated 24.03.2023 (page 9), relied upon the decision of the of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of N. Govindaraju vs. ITO reported in [2015] 377 ITR 243 (Kar) to hold that once the notice for reopening is valid, the additions can be made on all issues (including any other income also) which may come to the notice of the AO during the course of reassessment proceedings though the reason for reopening itself does....