DAVANAGERE HARIHAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DAVANGERE vs. ITO, DAVANGERE

which are directed against the order of the ld.CIT(A), Hubli dated 22-03-2013 for the assessment years : 2004-05 to 2006-07 respectively.

2. These appeals were filed in the year 2013 and till 17-05-2016, Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CA and the ld. AR of the assessee was appearing before the Tribunal and on various occasions, the hearing was adjourned on his request.

Thereafter, on 17-05-2016, he appeared and submitted a letter, as per which, it was intimated by him that he is withdrawing his power of attorney in respect of all these appeals. He also submitted that the assessee was also informed about this that he is withdrawing from this case.

Accordingly, on this date also i.e.17-05-2016, the hearing was adjourned and the case was fixed for hearing on 22-06-2016.

A notice of hearing was also sent to the assessee by RPAD. On this date also i.e. on 22-06-2016, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and thereafter, the case was adjourned to 05-07- 2016 and the notice of hearing was again sent. On this day also, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and since these are old appeal and under these facts, I find no justification in adjourning the hearing of these appeals and hence, the appeals were heard ex-parte qua the assessee.

3. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.

4. I have considered the submissions of the ld. DR of the revenue.

5. The grounds raised by the assessee in all these appeals are reproduced below; In 2004-05)

1. That the order of the learned CIT (A) in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Validity of Assessment u/s 147 2.1 That the assessment made u/s 147 without service of notice u/s 148 is void ab initio. 2.2 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessing officer has rightly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act even though the assessing officer did not have any reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment. 2.3 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment u/s 147 of the Act though the recorded reasons were not furnished to the appellant.

3. Validity of assessment: 3.1 That the learned Assessing Officer having accepted the return of income filed on 29-03-2007, erred in law and on facts in issuing the notice u/s 143(2) on 15-10-2008 which is beyond the time limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act and therefore all the subsequent proceedings and assessment are void ab initio.

4. Status of the appellant: 4.1 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in assessing the appellant in the status of Association of Person (AOP).

5. Diversion of income at source: 5.1 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in taxing the income in the hands of the appellant though the income is diverted at source. 5.2 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in taxing the income in the hands of the appellant ignoring the fact that the appellant has no control over the funds and only the State Government has right over the funds. 6 Computation: 6.1 The method of determination of profits is not in accordance with the accepted accounting principles and standards.

6.2 That the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that income from the entire project should have been computed by taking into account all expenses incurred including the past and future expenses. 6.3 That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding computation of income by the assessing officer based on current year expenses only. 6.4 That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not allowing depreciation. 6.5 That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in treating the additional ground regarding depreciation as additional evidence and wrongly Invoking Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. He ought to have disposed off the ground as a normal ground. 6.0 Rate of Tax: 6.1 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in charging tax at maximum marginal rate. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS 7.That the learned assessing officer erred in law and on facts in issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act on 04-02-2008 even though the time limit for issuing the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act with respect to return filed on 29-03-2007 expires only on 31-03-2008.

or otherwise modify either all or any of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

In (AY: 2005-06)

1. That the order of the learned CIT (A) in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Validity of Assessment u/s 147: 2.1 That the assessment made u/s 147 without service of notice u/s 148 is void ab initio.

2.2 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessing officer has rightly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act even though the assessing officer did not have any reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment.

2.3 That the learned CI T (A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment u/s 147 of the Act though the recorded reasons were not furnished to the appellant.

3. Validity of assessment: 3.1 That the learned Assessing Officer having accepted the return of income filed on 29-03-2007, erred in law and on facts in issuing the notice u/s 143(2) on 15-10-2008 which is beyond the time limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act and therefore all the subsequent proceedings and assessment are void ab initio.

4 Status of the appellant: 4.1 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in assessing the appellant in the status of Association of Person (AOP).

5. Diversion of income at source: 5.1 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in taxing the income in the hands of the appellant though the income is diverted at source. 5.2 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in taxing the income in the hands of the appellant ignoring the fact that the appellant has no control over the funds and only the State Government has right over the funds.

6.2 That the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that income from the entire project should have been computed by taking into account all expenses incurred including the past and future expenses.

6.3 That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding computation of income by the assessing officer based on current year expenses only.

6.4 That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not allowing depreciation.

6.5 That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in treating the additional ground regarding depreciation as additional evidence and wrongly invoking Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. He ought to have disposed off the ground as a normal ground.

6.0 Rate of Tax: 6.1 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in charging tax at maximum marginal rate.

ADDITIONAL GROUNDS 7.That the learned assessing officer erred in law and on facts in issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act on 04-02-2008 even though the time limit for issuing the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act with respect to return filed on 29-03- 2007 expires only on 31-03-2008. 8.That the assessment made u/s 144 read with section 147 is bad in law as a valid return filed on 29- 03-2007 was subsisting on the date of alleged issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act (i.e on 04-02-2008) 9.That the assessment made u/s 144 of the Act on 30-12-2008 is barred by limitation as being beyond the period prescribed u/s 153 of the Act. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify either all or any of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. In 2006-07)

2.1. That the assessment made u/s 147 without service of notice u/s 148 is void ab initio

2.2. That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessing officer has rightly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act even though the assessing officer did not have any reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment.

2.3 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment u/s 147 of the Act though the recorded reasons were not furnished to the appellant.

3.1 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in assessing the appellant in the status of Association of Person (AOP).

4.1 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in taxing the income in the hands of the appellant though the income is diverted at source.

4.2 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in taxing the income in the hands of the appellant ignoring the fact that the appellant has no control over the funds and only the State Government has right over the funds.

5.1 The method of determination of profits is not in accordance with the accepted accounting principles and standards.

5.2 That the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that income from the entire project should have been computed by taking into account all expenses incurred including the past and future expenses.

5.3 That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding computation of income by the assessing officer based on current year expenses only.

5.4 That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not allowing depreciation.

5.5 That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in treating the dditional ground regarding depreciation as additional evidence and wrongly invoking Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. He ought to have disposed off the ground as a normal ground.

6.0 Rate of Tax: 6.1 That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in charging tax at maximum marginal rate.

Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify either all or any of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

6. I have considered the submissions of the ld. DR of the revenue and after going through the orders of the authorities below, I find that in the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has decided all the objections of the assessee in a detailed manner and I find that there is no infirmity therein and therefore, I decline to interfere with the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on any of the issues. Accordingly, all the grounds raised in all these three assessment years are rejected.

Order pronounced in the open Court on the date mentioned in captioned page.