| |
The Tax PublishersT.C.A. No. 821 of 2018 & C.M.P. No. 20409 of 2018
2020 TaxPub(DT) 3496 (Mad-HC) : (2020) 274 TAXMAN 0492INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 148
Where Tribunal ought to have adjudicated all the grounds raised by the assessee i.e. whether the reopening is valid in law and whether there were materials in the hands of the AO for reopening the assessment and AO had not recorded any reasons as to why he came to the conclusion that income chargeable to income tax had escaped assessment and what was the belief which led to issuance of notice under section 148, therefore, matter was remanded back to Tribunal for fresh consideration.
|
Reassessment - Change of opinion - Non-recording of satisfaction by AO regarding income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment -
Assessee was a partner of a firm and case was taken up for limited scrutiny in so far as the deposits in the savings back account, to which, assessee stated that the deposit or funds belonging to the above said partnership firm, wherein, he and his wife were the partners. Assessment was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148. Assessee's case was that the reopening was not valid in law as it is a clear case of change of opinion. The contention advanced by the assessee was not accepted and the reassessment proceedings were completed. Assessee contended that mere audit objection could not form basis to reopen the completed assessment. Held: Tribunal ought to have adjudicated all the grounds raised by the assessee i.e. whether the reopening is valid in law and whether there were materials in the hands of the AO for reopening the assessment. Assessee was right in contending that the audit objection cannot be the basis for reopening. AO had not recorded any reasons as to why he came to the conclusion that the income chargeable to income tax had escaped assessment and what was the belief which led to issuance of notice under section 148. Therefore, matter was remanded back to Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Followed:GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO & Ors. (2013) 259 ITR 19 (SC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 734 (SC) and Gopal Yadav Selva Kumar v. ITO [ITA No. 111/Chny/2018, dt. 22-6-2018].
REFERRED : CIT v. Mettur Chemical & Industrial Corporation (2000) 242 ITR 119 (Mad) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 123 (Mad-HC) and Shalu Sachdeva v. ACIT (2015) 59 Taxmann.com 366 (Jodh-Mag-Trib) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1493 (Jod-Trib).
FAVOUR : Matter remanded.
A.Y. : 2011-12
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|