{"id":12684,"date":"2020-10-07T08:21:10","date_gmt":"2020-10-07T08:21:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/city-union-bank-ltd-v-acit-2020-425-itr-475-madhc\/"},"modified":"2020-10-07T08:21:10","modified_gmt":"2020-10-07T08:21:10","slug":"city-union-bank-ltd-v-acit-2020-425-itr-475-madhc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/city-union-bank-ltd-v-acit-2020-425-itr-475-madhc\/","title":{"rendered":"City Union Bank Ltd v. ACIT (2020) 425 ITR 475 (Mad)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Allowing the petition the Court held that the assessee had demonstrated that the conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under S.\u00a0147\u00a0did not exist and the Asst.Commissioner had therefore no jurisdiction to issue the notice in respect of the assessment year 2011-12 after the expiry of four years. When the issue touches on the jurisdiction of the authority, the existence of alternative remedy was no ground to deny relief to the assessee. Court also held that \u00a0\u00a0there was no failure on the part of the assessee. On the other hand, there appeared to be a failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to make an appropriate determination of the amount of expenditure in terms of section\u00a014A\u00a0. The other reason cited by the authority was also not sufficient. It was beyond dispute that the census figures for the year 2011 were made available only a few years later. The assessee could not have looked into the future while submitting its return of income. The notice was not valid.<em>(<\/em> AY.2011-12)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S.147: Reassessment-After the   expiry of four years-  Primary facts disclosed \u2014 Assessing Officer not making appropriate calculation \u2014Notice of  reassessment issued without jurisdiction \u2014 Existence Of Alternate Remedy would not bar issue ow writ to quash notice  [ S.14A , 148  Rule 8D ,Art , 226 ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12684","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3iA","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12684","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12684"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12684\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12685,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12684\/revisions\/12685"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12684"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12684"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12684"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}