Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that it was only in the year 2009, i. e., on March 30, 2009 to be precised that the Assessing Officer issued the section\u00a0148\u00a0notice. The reopening initiated beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was not sustainable in the absence of the specified amount of taxable income having escaped assessment being recorded in reopening-reasons. Therefore, the reopening was not sustainable. Held that there was no cogent material indicating that the assessees had a one-fifth share each in the trusts\u2019 assets. The assessees\u2019 alleged one-fifth share in the trust balance had neither accrued nor arisen so as to be taxed in the-assessees\u2019 hands. The authorities had erred in law and on the facts in initiating section\u00a0148\u00a0proceedings against the two assessees culminating in the addition of Rs. 230,71,880 each.\u00a0 As regards the taxability of amount receivable from discretionary trust and accrual of income,\u00a0 the\u00a0 tribunal\u00a0 referred\u00a0 CWT v. Estate of Late HMM Vikramsinhji of Gondal (2014) 363 ITR 679 (SC), CIT v. Kamalini Khatau (1994) 209 ITR 101 (SC), Seth Pushalal\u00a0 Mansinghka (P) Ltd\u00a0 v.CIT (1967) 66 ITR 159 (SC)<\/p>\n
Additional ground reassessment was admitted.\u00a0 Followed\u00a0 National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)\u00a0 and All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 18 ITR 16 \/ 137 ITD 26 (SB)(Mum)(Trib).(AY.2002-03)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Unexplained investment-Beneficiaries of Trusts-Discretionary trust-Account with bank in Liechtenstein-Notice barred by limitation-Addition was not valid-1\/5 share in the trust neither accrued nor arisen-Additional ground was admitted. [S. 69, 143(3), 148, 151(2)] <\/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-25495","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-6Dd","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25495","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=25495"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25495\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25496,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25495\/revisions\/25496"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25495"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25495"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25495"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}