| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
June 5, 2011 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
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 Posts:
- Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) If the nature of services rendered have a proximate nexus with the extraction of production of mineral oils, it would be outside the ambit of the definition of FTS. In the instant case, since the nature of services rendered by the Petitioner gets excluded from the definition of “FTS”, in…
- Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v Assistant…
- Indus Towers Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Considering the fact that the petitioner has invoked the discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner was expected to approach this Court with clean hands, which, unfortunately, we find is completely lacking in the present case. We are, therefore, not inclined to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction in…
- PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (Delhi High Court) The startling spike in the share price and other factors may be enough to show circumstances that might create suspicion; however the Court has to decide an issue on the basis of evidence and proof, and not on suspicion alone. The theory of human behavior and preponderance of probabilities cannot…
- PCIT (Central) - 3 vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (Delhi High Court) Now, coming to the aspect viz the invocation of section 153A on the basis of the statement recorded in search action against a third person. We may note that the AO has used this statement on oath recorded in the course of search conducted in the case of a third…
- New Delhi Television Ltd vs. DCIT (Supreme Court) In our view the assessee disclosed all the primary facts necessary for assessment of its case to the assessing officer. What the revenue urges is that the assessee did not make a full and true disclosure of certain other facts. We are of the view that the assessee had disclosed…
it is good to update the knowledge with the short synopsis
it is always good to update the knowledge with this short synopsis
it is always good to update the knowledge with short synopsis
To know the latest judicial pronouncement is always essential for a professional to update his tool kit