INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR vs. M/S. AGRAWAL BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,, LATUR

This Revenue’s appeal for A.Y.2012-13 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad’s order dated 09.08.2019in Case No.ABD/CIT(A)-2/212/2018-19 in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act”. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that there is hardly any need for us to delve deeper in the M/s. Agrawal Builders & Developers relevant factual matrix sofar as the first and foremost legal issue of correctness of section 148/147 proceedings herein is concerned.

Suffice to say, it emerges during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer had framed section 143(3) scrutiny assessment herein dated 07.01.2015 order accepted the respondent/assessee’s income as Nil. These facts duly emanate from a perusal of section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 order before us dated 14-12-2018. The Assessing Officer thereafter formed his reasons to believe on the basis of the alleged tangible material that the assessee’s taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment. He thus issued section 148 notice dated 31-03- 2018 very well beyond the specified period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2012-13 u/s. 147 – proviso. We invited Mr. Murkunde’s attention to the said re-opening reasons wherein there is not even an allegation on the Assessing Officer’s part that the assessee had not disclosed “fully” and “truly” all the relevant particulars. That being the case, we quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) that such a failure on the Assessing Officer’s part indeed vitiates the entire proceedings as the re-opening reasons have to be read on stand- alone basis without any scope of improvement at a later stage. We accordingly decide the instant legal issue in assessee’s favour and M/s. Agrawal Builders & Developers against the department to quash the impugned reopening itself. Ordered accordingly.