Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A BENCH, PUNE
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Narendra M. Agrawal ACIT, Circle - 1 532, Aarti Steel Nashik Vs. 60 Feet Road, Sarda Circle Nashik 422001 PAN – ABGPA9107R Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Sanket Milind Joshi Respondent by: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of Hearing: 22.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 04.05.2022 O R D E R
Per S.S. Godara, JM
This assessee’s appeal for AY 2008-09 is against the order of the CIT(A) 1, Nashik dated 06.10.2015 passed in case No. Nsk/CIT(A)-1/38/2014-15 involving proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the Act.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We note at the outset that the assessee has raised its additional ground seeking to challenge validity of the impugned reopening. The Revenue’s stand before us is that the same ought not to be allowed at this belated stage. We do not find any merit in Revenue’s instant technical defence as the instant issue goes to the route of the case. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision of NTPC vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) as considered the tribunal’s Special Bench decision in the case of All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 287 (Mum) (SB), holds that we can very well entertain an additional ground to determine the correct tax liability of an assessee provided all the relevant facts form part of the record before us. We thus accept the assessee’s prayer to raise the instant additional ground.
Now comes the most crucial issue of validity of the impugned reopening. We make it clear that we are in AY 2008-09. A perusal of the case record and more particularly the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons recorded suggest that he had only taken cognisance of assessee’s investments made in FY 2005-06 relevant to AY 2006-07 from the corresponding search action dated 25.11.209.
Mr. Walimbe failed to rebut the clinching aspect that the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons do not deal with the assessee’s investments or profit derived therefrom in FY 2007-08 relevant to the impugned assessment year. We thus rely on Biswanath Samanta vs. ITO (1973) ITR 331 (Kol), Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) and Pransukhlal Bros vs. ITO (2015) 229 TAXMAN 444 (Bom) that such a reopening based on vague reasons and not dealing with taxable income having escaped assessment in the relevant previous year, is not sustainable in law. We accordingly quash the same for this precise reason. His other pleadings are rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.