Wednesday, 4 November 2015

Imp Verdicts On Penalty, Revision And Reopening


Sarita Kaur Manjeet Singh Chopra vs. ITO (ITAT Pune)


Scope of Explanation 5A to S. 271(1)(c) on deemed concealment despite income having been offered in the search return explained

The deeming provisions of Explanation 5A under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are applicable to all the searches initiated under section 132 of the Act on or after first day of June, 2007. Reading the said provisions of the Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is noted that the person is deemed to have concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, which is equivalent to the value of money, bullion, jewellery, valuable articles or things from the possession of the assessee during the course of search conducted on or after first day of June, 2007


Ved Parkash Contractors vs. CIT (ITAT Chandigarh)

S. 263: CIT’s action of stepping into shoes of AO and virtually redoing assessment by issuing specific directions to AO is unlawful. Remand to AO with direction to give opportunity of hearing to assessee is meaningless

It is trite law that it is not permissible for the CIT being a revisional authority to step into the shoes of the Assessing officer and to redo the assessment and pass fresh assessment order. In the instant case, the Commissioner has set aside the order of the Assessing officer on the aforesaid issues with a direction to the Assessing officer to pass a fresh assessment order. At the same time, the Commissioner has directed the Assessing officer to make specific additions. Remanding the matter to the Assessing officer is of no consequence, particularly when the CIT himself has reframed the assessment. The CIT has not left any scope for the Assessing officer to redo the assessment or pass a fresh assessment order


M/s Kothari Metals vs. ITO (Karnataka High Court)

S. 147/ 148: Non-furnishing of reasons for reopening to assessee renders reassessment void

The question of non-furnishing the reasons for re-opening an already concluded assessment goes to the very root of the matter. Since such reasons had not been furnished to the appellant, even though a request for the same had been made, we are of the opinion that proceedings for the re-assessment could not have been taken further on this ground alone

No comments: