Tribunal held\u00a0 that no additions were made for the grounds taken by the Assessing Officer towards formation of belief and the addition was eventually made under the deeming fiction of section\u00a02(22)(e). No relevant material was referred to by the Assessing Officer for applicability of section\u00a02(22)(e)\u00a0of the Act at the time of recording the reasons. The applicability of section\u00a02(22)(e)\u00a0was discovered at a subsequent stage in the course of assessment. Thus, it was not permissible for the Assessing Officer to supplement the reasons and make additions on the contours of section\u00a02(22)(e)\u00a0of the Act for which no reasons were recorded. The additions made by the Assessing Officer towards deemed income under section\u00a02(22)(e)\u00a0of the Act, being extraneous to the reasons recorded, had to be struck down on this score. Followed \u00a0CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 355 ITR 172 (Guj)(HC) Ram Bai v. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 696 (SC)\u00a0 Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT\u00a0 (No. 1) (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom)(HC) and East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1981) 128 ITR 326 (Cal) (HC). Tribunal held that the approval memo given by the Joint Commissioner noted the name of the assessee with many other assessees and granted a consolidated approval for action under section\u00a0147\u00a0of the Act stating \u201cyour proposal for reopening the above cases under section\u00a0147\u00a0of the Act is hereby approved\u201d. Any reference to formation of \u201csatisfaction\u201d of the Joint Commissioner prior to approval, even in brief, was missing. Hence, in the absence of express satisfaction recorded by the Joint Commissioner while granting approval under section\u00a0151\u00a0of the Act, the consequential action of the Assessing Officer under section\u00a0147\u00a0could not be upheld. This apart, a consolidated approval memo of multiple assessees without recording satisfaction qua each individual case raised serious doubt on the plausibility of implicit satisfaction for each case as contemplated in section\u00a0151\u00a0of the Act. As regards the legal objection raised by the assessee on the validity of assumption of jurisdiction under section\u00a0147\u00a0read with section\u00a0151\u00a0of the Act and consequent additions carried out under section\u00a02(22)(e)\u00a0of the Act within the framework of the provisions of section\u00a0147\u00a0of the Act struck to the root of the matter and therefore, could be challenged before the Tribunal even if not raised or not argued before the lower authorities. Accordingly\u00a0 the proceedings under section\u00a0147\u00a0\/\u00a0148\u00a0of the Act were void ab initio and the additions made under section\u00a02(22)(e)\u00a0of the Act bad in law. (AY. 2013-14)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 147 : Reassessment-Not making any additions on grounds initially raised in notice or in reasons recorded-Not entitled to make additions on other grounds-Sanction-Consolidated approval in group case without recording qua each case-Reassessment invalid-Legal ground on jurisdiction can be raised first time before Appellate Tribunal [S. 2(22)(e), 148 (2), 151, 254(1)].<\/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-18008","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-4Gs","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18008","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=18008"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18008\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18009,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18008\/revisions\/18009"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18008"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}