CHITRA EARTH MOVERS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 820/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 November 2017AY 2004-053 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the AO misunderstood and misread the previous ITAT order. The previous order did not direct that the amounts be taxed in AY 2004-05, and the reasons for reopening were not the AO's own.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment for AY 2004-05 was reopened based on a previous ITAT order concerning AY 2005-06. The AO believed certain creditors and transactions were bogus, and the amounts should be taxed in AY 2004-05.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid based on a misinterpretation of a previous ITAT order and if the reasons for reopening were properly formed by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 153(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy

order : November 10, 2017 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT(A)’), dated 31.03.2016 passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2004-05 on the following grounds: “

1. That reopening of Assessment for Asst. Year 2004-05 on 23.12.2013 u/s 147/148 based on Tribunal's Finding on 10.07.12 in Asst. Year 2005-06 u/s 153(3) is bad in law, void and time barred.

2. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as facts in holding that “it cannot be conclusively established as to which are the parties that the A O has been referring to in respect of whom the said verifications has been made. An inference that he is talking about the same two parties as in the instant appeal cannot immediately be drawn from the records or any of the appellant's submissions or averments.” When there are only 2 Parties and no other parties.

3. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as facts in holding Rs. 6,49,860/- out of total of Rs. 6,94,905/- of Shivam Associates as Bogus Expenditure and confirming the disallowance.

4. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as facts in holding Fts.2,08,762/- out of Rs. 3,23,625/- of Sidhi Vinayak Construction as bogus expenditure and confirming the disallowance 5) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or substitute further grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3. After hearing rival contentions, I find that the reasons for reopening have been recorded as follows:

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →