Please click on the categories to the right to find what you are looking for. Click on this icon to download the file. You will need a PDF reader to view the files. You can download one for free from Foxit 1.8 MB or from Adobe 20MB.

(346.7 KiB, 844 DLs)

Download: ranbaxy_147_drop_original_reason.pdf


If AO does not assess income for which reasons were recorded u/s 147, he cannot assess other income u/s 147

 

The AO issued a notice u/s 148 for the reason that club fees, gifts and presents and provision for leave encashment had escaped assessment. Pursuant to the assessee’s explanation, the AO accepted that these items had not escaped assessment. However, he passed an order u/s 147 on the ground that deduction u/s 80HH and 80-I had been wrongly claimed on export incentives like duty drawback, profit on sale of REP licences and cash assistance, etc even though these issues did not figure in the recorded reasons. This was upheld by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. On appeal by the assessee to the High Court, HELD allowing the appeal:

 

Though Explanation 3 to s. 147 inserted by the FA 2009 w.e.f 1.4.1989 permits the AO to assess or reassess income which has escaped assessment even if the recorded reasons have not been recorded with regard to such items, it is essential that the items in respect of which the reasons had been recorded are assessed. If the AO accepts that the items for which reasons are recorded have not escaped assessment, it means he had no “reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment” and the issue of the notice becomes invalid. If so, he has no jurisdiction to assess any other income. (Jet Airways 331 ITR 236 (Bom) followed).

 

For a discussion on whether Jet Airways 331 ITR 236 (Bom) is correctly decided click here

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd (Bombay High Court) 

    The words “and also” in s. 147 indicate that reassessment must be with respect to the income for which the AO has formed an opinion and also in respect of any other income which comes to his notice subsequently. However, if the AO accepts the objection of the assessee…

  2. Sanjay Kumar Garg vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    There is a difference between “issue” and “service”. To obtain jurisdiction to assess/reassess the escaped income, the s. 148 notice has to be “issued” but need not be “served”. Service is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction on the AO but a condition precedent only to the…

  3. Bhavesh Developers vs. AO (Bombay High Court) 

    Under the proviso to s. 147, an assessment made u/s 143 (3) can be reopened after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the assessment year only if there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary…

4 Responses to “Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)”

  1. PUTCHA PRASAD Says:

    it is good to update the knowledge with the short synopsis

  2. PUTCHA PRASAD Says:

    it is always good to update the knowledge with this short synopsis

  3. PUTCHA PRASAD Says:

    it is always good to update the knowledge with short synopsis

  4. PUTCHA PRASAD Says:

    To know the latest judicial pronouncement is always essential for a professional to update his tool kit

Leave a Reply


− 3 = five