TAPAS DUTTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

The relevant facts of this case giving rise to this appeal are as follows:- The assesese is an individual, who filed his return of income for the year under consideration originally on 28.08.2002 declaring total income of Rs.54,750/-. Thereafter a revised return was filed by the assessee on 20.03.2003 declaring total income of Rs.96,050/-. Since the original return filed by the assessee on 28.08.2002 was beyond the due date, the revised return filed by the assessee subsequently on 20.03.2003 was held ./2014 Assessment year: 2001-2002 Page 2 of 3 to be invalid by the Assessing Officer and in order to regularize the same, a notice under section 148 was issued by him to the assessee on 30.03.2006. In pursuance of the said notice, assessment under section 147 read with section 144 was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.12.2007 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,09,999/-.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 read with section 147, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the validity of the said assessment as well as disputing the addition of Rs.14,999/- made therein on account of alleged undisclosed asset. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, did not find merit in the appeal of the assessee and upholding the order of the Assessing Officer, he dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In this appeal, the assessee has raised a preliminary issue challenging the validity of reopening of assessment on the ground that the assessment under section 143(1) having been already completed by the Assessing Officer on 04.07.2003 on the income of Rs.96,050/- as declared in the revised return filed on 20.03.2003, there was no escapement of any income from the assessment and the reopening made by the Assessing Officer by issuing notice under section 148 to regularize the revised return of income was not in accordance with law. I find merit in this contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. It is observed that in the intimation issued under section 143(1) on 04.07.2003, the total income of Rs.96,050/- as declared by the assessee in the revised return filed on 20.03.2003 was already assessed by the Assessing Officer in the hands of the assessee and, therefore, there was no question of any escapement of income of the assessee as declared in the revised return of income. Even if it is assumed that the revised return filed by the assessee was invalid, the income declared therein ./2014 Assessment year: 2001-2002 Page 3 of 3 having been already assessed in the hands of the assessee, there was no escapement of income from the assessment, which gave an authority to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment in the guise of regularizing the revised return. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer, in my opinion, could not have any belief about the escapement of income on the basis of the revised return filed by the assessee and the reopening of assessment as made by him was not in accordance with law. I, therefore, cancel the assessment made by him under section 144/147 by treating the same as invalid and decide the preliminary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal in favour of the assessee.