REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

reassess such income for such assessment year. Further, section 147 makes it very clear that in order to invoke provisions of section 147, there should be income which has escaped assessment, and such escapement should be based on fresh tangible material which comes to the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the completion of the original assessment and further

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

reassess such income for such assessment year. Further, section 147 makes it very clear that in order to invoke provisions of section 147, there should be income which has escaped assessment, and such escapement should be based on fresh tangible material which comes to the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the completion of the original assessment and further

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

reassess such income for such assessment year. Further, section 147 makes it very clear that in order to invoke provisions of section 147, there should be income which has escaped assessment, and such escapement should be based on fresh tangible material which comes to the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the completion of the original assessment and further

SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. (3) The amount of under-reported income shall be,—.. (4) – (6) (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

reassess such income for such\n assessment year. Further, section 147 makes it very clear that in order to invoke\nprovisions of section 147, there should be income which has escaped assessment,\nand such escapement should be based on fresh tangible material which comes to the\npossession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the completion of the original\nassessment

SRI.PARAYARUKANDY VETTATH GANGADHARAN,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), CALICUT

In the result, the instant appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasparayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) Kerala Transport Company (Decd., Calicut Vs. Represented By Lrs.) K.T.C. Building, Ymca Calicut 673001 [Pan: Adhpg8318B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment may be made shall apply to a re-assessment made under section 27 or to an assessment or re-assessment made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 31, section 33, section 33-A, section 33-B, section 66 or section

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of 'mere change of opinion', which cannot be per se reason to reopen. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of 'mere change of opinion', which cannot be per se reason to reopen. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of 'mere change of opinion', which cannot be per se reason to reopen. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of 'mere change of opinion', which cannot be per se reason to reopen. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings, which are for the benefit of the Revenue (CIT v. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC)). This was not accepted by the AO who, reckoning that on manufactured and traded goods separately, worked out deduction on the latter at Rs.327.40 lakhs. The assessment was completed on 09.03.2004, making the following adjustments to the returned

MANJILAS AGRO FOOD PVT.LTD.,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1(2),, THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

reassessment proceedings from time to time and had discussed the impugned issue with the AO. The assessee did not seek any reason before the AO and therefore cannot contend the reopening on this ground. The CIT(A) on merits held that claim of higher depreciation by the assessee is not justified. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

reassessment proceedings from time to time and had discussed the impugned issue with the AO. The assessee did not seek any reason before the AO and therefore cannot contend the reopening on this ground. The CIT(A) on merits held that claim of higher depreciation by the assessee is not justified. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THACIT,CIRCLE-1(1 ), THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

reassessment proceedings from time to time and had discussed the impugned issue with the AO. The assessee did not seek any reason before the AO and therefore cannot contend the reopening on this ground. The CIT(A) on merits held that claim of higher depreciation by the assessee is not justified. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 43B of the Act. The reassessment order was passed on 26.12.2018 by making addition of Rs.6,32,442 determining total loss of assessee at Rs.22,90,188. 16. The assessee aggrieved with the reassessment order preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) wherein it challenged the reopening of the ITA Nos.268 & 269/COCH/2023 Page 7 of 9

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 43B of the Act. The reassessment order was passed on 26.12.2018 by making addition of Rs.6,32,442 determining total loss of assessee at Rs.22,90,188. 16. The assessee aggrieved with the reassessment order preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) wherein it challenged the reopening of the ITA Nos.268 & 269/COCH/2023 Page 7 of 9

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nitta Gelatin India Limited ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [Pan:Aabck1582H] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

Sections 143(2) and 142(1), the AO was not satisfied with the assessee’s submissions and completed the reassessment with adverse findings. 6. Dissatisfied with the above order the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) passed an exparte order. 7 Aggrieved by the above order the assessee filed an appeal befoer

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nitta Gelatin India Limited ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [Pan:Aabck1582H] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

Sections 143(2) and 142(1), the AO was not satisfied with the assessee’s submissions and completed the reassessment with adverse findings. 6. Dissatisfied with the above order the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) passed an exparte order. 7 Aggrieved by the above order the assessee filed an appeal befoer