Decisions in Favour of the assessee – Prepared By CA Rekha K Mittal & CA Karunesh Mittal :
| Citation | [2017] 88 taxmann.com 182 (Delhi – Trib.) |
| Court | ITAT |
| Case Name | Indu Arts vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 19(1), New Delhi |
| Date of Decision | 07-06-2017 |
| Appeal No | IT Appeal No. 6611 (Delhi) of 2016, 6611 of 2016 |
| In favour of | ;In favour of assessee |
| Headnote | Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – General (Scope of reassessment) – Assessment year 2006-07 – Whether where Assessing Officer, after issuing a notice under section 148, accepts contention of assessee and holds that income, of which he has initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to assess some other income – Held, yes – For relevant year, assessee filed its return declaring certain taxable income – Assessment was completed under section 143(3) – Subsequently, Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings and made addition to assessee’s income on account of discrepancies in figures of opening stock and closing stock – Commissioner (Appeals) deleted said addition – He, however, made another addition on ground that there were some discrepancies in quantitative details filed by assessee – Whether since Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted foundational addition, in such a case having regard to aforesaid legal position, neither Assessing Officer nor for that purpose, Commissioner (Appeals), exercising his co-terminous power, could have made ‘other addition’ – Held, yes – Whether, consequently, impugned addition was to be deleted – Held, yes [Paras 6 and 11] [In favour of assessee]IT : Where AO, after issuing a notice under section 148, accepts contention of assessee and holds that income, of which he has initially formed a reason to believe that it had escaped assessment, has, as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to assess some other income
|
| Citation | [2013] 40 taxmann.com 149 (Jabalpur)/[2014] 61 SOT 108 (Jabalpur)(URO)/[2013] 156 TTJ 28 (Jabalpur)(UO) |
| Court | ITAT |
| Case Name | Mihani Dal Mills vs. Income-tax Officer |
| Date of Decision | 02-02-2013 |
| Appeal No | 112 of 2009 | IT Appeal No. 112 (Jab.) of 2009 |
| In favour of | ;In favour of assessee |
| Headnote | Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – Illustration [Reason to believe] – Assessment year 1999-2000 – Whether for a bona fide reason it is necessary that any assessment made in consequence of section 147, income as has escaped in opinion of Assessing Officer on basis of reasons recorded, additions must have been made – Held, yes – Whether further, if Assessing Officer did not make any addition in respect of income for escaped amount of which Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe, and Assessing Officer made addition in respect of any other income, reasons so recorded could not be regarded to be a bona fide one – Held, yes – Whether, therefore, where Assessing Officer had not made any addition in respect of escaped income for which he had recorded reasons, assessment order was liable to be cancelled – Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of assessee]IT : Where Assessing Officer had not made any addition in respect of escaped income for which he had recorded reasons, assessment order was liable to be cancelled
|
| Citation | [2011] 12 taxmann.com 74 (Delhi)/[2011] 200 Taxman 242 (Delhi)/[2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi)/[2011] 242 CTR 117 (Delhi) |
| Court | HC |
| Case Name | Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax |
| Affirm-Reverse | This Case is Distinguished in [2018] 98 taxmann.com 306 (Delhi)/ : 101010000000183824 |
| Date of Decision | 03-06-2011 |
| Appeal No | 148 of 2008 | IT APPEAL NO. 148 of 2008 |
| In favour of | ;In favour of assessee |
| Headnote | Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – General – Whether if during course of reassessment proceedings, Assessing Officer comes to conclusion that some items have escaped assessment, then notwithstanding that those items were not included in reasons to believe as recorded for initiation of proceedings and notice, he would be competent to make assessment of those items – Held, yes – Whether, however, Legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to Assessing Officer that on assuming jurisdiction under section 147 regarding assessment or reassessment of escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with reasons to believe, on basis of which he assumed jurisdiction – Held, yes – Whether for every new issue coming before Assessing Officer during course of proceedings of assessment or reassessment of escaped income, and which he intends to take into account, he would be required to issue a fresh notice under section 148 – Held, yes – Assessing Officer reopened assessee’s assessment on ground that items, viz., club fees, gifts and presents and provision for leave encashment had escaped assessment – During reassessment proceedings, Assessing Officer was satisfied with justifications given by assessee regarding aforesaid items but found deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I as claimed by assessee to be not admissible – He, consequently, while not making additions on items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., reduced claim of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I – Whether Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to reassess issues other than issues in respect of which proceedings were initiated – Held, yes – Whether, however, since Assessing Officer had not made any disallowance in respect of items of club fees, gifts and presents and, thus, reasons for initiation of reassessment proceedings ceased to survive, there was no justification in reducing claim of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I – Held, yes
|
| Citation | [2012] 27 taxmann.com 128 (Delhi – Trib.)/[2012] 146 TTJ 17 (Delhi – Trib.)(UO) |
| Court | ITAT |
| Case Name | Cheil India (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax |
| Date of Decision | 31-01-2012 |
| Appeal No | 5161 of 2011, 5162 of 2011 | AY=”ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08″>IT APPEAL NOS. 5161 & 5162 (DELHI) OF 2011 |
| In favour of | ;In favour of assessee |
| Headnote | I. Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Assessment – Addition to Income – Assessment year 2007-08 – Addition having been made at back of assessee without confronting same to assessee much less allowing assessee any opportunity to rebut it, was not sustainable [In favour of assessee]
II. Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – General – Assessment year 2007-08 – Where no addition was made on basis of reasons recorded by Assessing Officer for reopening completed assessment and remaining additions made in reassessment were not part of said reasons to believe recorded by Assessing Officer, reopening was bad in law [In favour of assessee] |
| Citation | [2012] 24 taxmann.com 147 (Chhattisgarh)/[2012] 210 Taxman 176 (Chhattisgarh)/[2012] 344 ITR 641 (Chhattisgarh)/[2012] 246 CTR 255 (Chhattisgarh) |
| Court | HC |
| Case Name | Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Raipur vs. Major Deepak Mehta |
| Date of Decision | 08-11-2011 |
| Appeal No | 4 of 2006 | IT Appeal No. 4 of 2006 |
| In favour of | ;In favour of assessee |
| Headnote | Section 147, read with section 152, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – Non-disclosure of primary facts – Assessment year 1997-98 – Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings on ground that capital work-in-progress under head ‘building’ shown in balance sheet as on 31-3-1996 was not carried forward to balance sheet as on 1-4-1996 – Subsequently an assessment order was passed wherein additions were made to assessee’s income on different grounds but not in respect of amount shown under head ‘building’ – Whether finally there was no escapement of income in respect of head which formed reason to believe in notice issued under section 148 and, therefore, impugned reassessment order was to be set aside – Held, yes [In favour of assessee] |