Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI ‘ SMC’ BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI N.S SAINI
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of
the CIT(A), Ranchi, dated 22.8.2017 for the assessment year
2007-08.
An adjournment petition was filed by ld Authorised
Representative of the assesse. However, at the time of hearing,
ld Authorised representative did not press the adjournment petition
and, therefore, the Bench proceeded to hear the appeal of the
assesse.
P a g e 1 | 5
ITA No. 275/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 07- 08 :
Ground Nos.1 & 2 of additional ground raised by the assesse
are as under:
‘1. For that the impugned assessment proceeding u/s.143(3)/147 is without jurisdiction because at time of assessment no investment in land, building or other assets were found which did not commensurate to the income shown in the return and no undisclosed investment was found or assessed. As such the proceedings should have been dropped. 2. For that the AO was not authorised to review the return in the garb of section 147 to make fishing enquiries and to make additions by disbelieving the items which were duly disclosed in the return and which were totally unconnected with the grounds for reopening of the assessment u/s.147, for which even no reasons were recorded.’ 4. The ld Departmental Representative did not have any
objection in admitting the additional grounds raised before the
Tribunal. Therefore, the additional grounds raised by the assesse
were admitted and the parties were allowed to make their
submissions on the same.
The brief facts of the case are that the assesse filed the return
of income for the assessment year 2007-08 on 16.1.2008 showing
income of Rs.1,79,971/-. The same was processed under section
143(1) on 20.3.2009. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued
notice for reopening of the assessment u/s.148 of the Act on
21.8.2009 and served on the assesse on the same date by recording
the following reasons:
P a g e 2 | 5
ITA No. 275/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 07- 08 :
‘Smt. Sushila Devi, as per return of income of A.Y. 2007-08 has shown total income of Rs.1,79,971/-. However, as per details/materials available on record, it is seen that Smt,. Sushila Devi has made substantial investments in land, building and other assets which are not commensurate to the income shown in return filed. Various media reports are also available indicating substantial undisclosed investments.’ 6. Thereafter, the assessment was completed u/s.147
r.w.s143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2010 by making addition of
Rs.30,500/- under the head ‘unexplained investment through loan’,
Rs.1,11,659/- under the head ‘unexplained investment’ and
Rs.3,50,000/- under the head ‘unsecured loan’ and after taking into
consideration the income shown by the assesse in the return at
Rs.1,79,971/-, the total income of the assesse was determined at
Rs.6,72,130/-.
Before me, ld Authorised Representative of the assesse
submitted that though this ground of appeal was not raised before
the CIT(A) but it being a legal issue, which goes to the root of the
matter, same can be raised before the Tribunal and relied on the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs NPTC, 229
ITR 363 (SC). He further submitted that reopening of assessment
was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that that Smt,.
Sushila Devi has made substantial investments in land, building and
other assets which are not commensurate to the income shown in
return filed. In the assessment framed, no addition has been made
P a g e 3 | 5
ITA No. 275/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 07- 08 :
on this ground to the income of the assesse, for which, reopening
of assessment was made. Therefore, it was his submission that the
Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to pass order under section
147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act making addition on the other heads to
the income of the assesse. For this, he relied on the decision of
Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Mohd Juned Dadani
(2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj) and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High
Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (i) Ltd., (2011) 331 ITR 236
(Bom).
On the other hand, ld Departmental Representative could not
controvert the submission of ld A.R. of the assesse.
I have considered the rival submissions, perused the orders
of lower authorities and materials available on record. I find that
this ground of appeal was not raised before the CIT(A) and has been
raised before me for the first time. Therefore, I set aside this issue
to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudicating the same as per law and
after allowing reasonable hearing to the assesse.
As I have restored the above ground of appeal to the file of
the CIT(A), which relates to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer
to pass order u/s.147 of the Act, hence, other grounds of appeal
P a g e 4 | 5
ITA No. 275/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 07- 08 :
taken by the assesse on merits of addition are also restored back
to his file for fresh adjudication as per law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced on 28 /11/2018.
Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 28/11/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Sushila Devi, W/O Sri Hari Narayan Rai, R/O. Sonaraithari, Dist: Deogarh
The Respondent. ACIT, Circle-1, Ranchi 3. The CIT(A)- Ranchi. 4. Pr.CIT- Ranchi 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. By order //True Copy//
Sr. Pvt.Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi on tour
P a g e 5 | 5