Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR.
(Assessment Year:2003-04) Meenum Chandra Mohan, Plot No.96-A, TPS, 3rd Floor, 15th Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050 Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 19(3)-3, Mumbai - 400012 Respondent PAN: AADPC1576C अपीलाथ� की ओर से /By Appellant : Ms. Bhumika Vora, A.R. ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent : Shri G. N. Makwana, D.R. सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08.08.2016 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12.08.2016 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: This appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai, dated 19.11.2013 for A.Y. 2003-04 on following ground:
A.Y. 03-04 [Meenum Chandra Mohan vs. ITO] Page 2
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner') erred in confirming ld. A.O's action of reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 dated 22.01.2007.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellants case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of expenses Rs.7,11,593/- made by the ld. A.O and treating the same as capital expenditure.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the appellants case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- made by the ld. A.O on account of gift received by the appellant from her father.
On the facts and circumstances of the appellants case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.70,000/- made by the ld. A.O on account of alleged income under the head "Income From House Property".
First issue is with regard to reopening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The stand of assessee has been that the point which is basis of reopening has not been taken in to account while making the addition, it means that addition has not been made in the ground, which was basis for reopening. While in re-assessment proceedings, further addition has been made as detailed in grounds of appeal. In this background, ld. Authorized Representative drew our attention to the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 0236 (Bom.), wherein it has been held that by virtue of amendment to Section 147 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.1989, Assessing Officer can also assess other A.Y. 03-04 [Meenum Chandra Mohan vs. ITO] Page 3 income not referred to in notice of reassessment. Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that power to assessee such other income only if income referred to in notice of re-assessment has been assessed. So, the explanation is not applicable in case of assessee because Assessing Officer has power to assess such other income only if income referred to notice has been assess in the re-assessment order. In view of this legal submission taken before us, order of CIT(A) is set aside. Since, we have set aside the order of CIT(A) on preliminary issue as discussed above, so, issue on merit goes academic. Same may be adjudicated as and when required to do so.
In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed.
Pronounced in the open Court on this the 12th day of August, 2016.