SUSHILA DEVI,DEOGHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

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.

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

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.

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 ‘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/-.

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 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).

controvert the submission of ld A.R. of the assesse.

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.

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 taken by the assesse on merits of addition are also restored back

to his file for fresh adjudication as per law.

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

Sr. Pvt.Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi on tour

P a g e 5 | 5