Kaushalendra Pratap Singh v. ITO

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2012 TaxPub(DT) 0603 (Kol-Trib) : (2011) 133 ITD 0111 : (2012) 144 TTJ 0384 : (2012) 067 DTR 0267 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Reassessment--Notice under section 148Furnishing of recorded reason required--AO observed that assessee had not deducted TDS as required, therefore he had formed an opinion that income had escaped assessment. Notice was issued under section 148 and case was reopened. AO passed assessment order under section 144 read with section 147 and debited certain expenditures and added certain income. Assessee contended that AO did not furnish him recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment. *Held :* On receiving the notice assessee is to first file the return of income and thereafter he can seek the reasons recorded for issuing the notice. AO is bound to furnish the reasons recorded within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons recorded, assessee is entitled to file objection to the issuance of notice. Accordingly AO had not followed the procedure . He had not issued the proper copy of reasons recorded to assessee within reasonable time. Therefore assessment was set aside and matter was remanded back. Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 148 IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH 'C' (THIRD MEMBER) G.D. AGRAWAL, V.P. (AS A THIRD MEMBER) B.R. MITTAL, J.M. B.K. HALDAR AND C.D. RAO, A.M. Kaushalendra Pratap Singh v. ITO IT Appeal No. 1747 (Kol.) of 2010 A.Y. 2005-06 26 May, 2011 Appellant by : Rajen Dhar, Respondent by : D.R. Singhal ORDER *B.R. Mittal, J.M.* The assessee has filed this appeal to assessment year 2005-06 against the order of learned C.I.T.(A)-XIV, Kolkata dated 29-7-2010 on the following grounds :- '1. For that learned Commission (Appeals) should have held that Assessment Order dated 29-12-2008 served on 5-1-2009 was barred by limitation, invalid and inoperative in law. 2. For that learned Commission (Appeals) should have held that proceedings under section 144 of the Income Tax Act 61 and that under section 147 of the Act are different proceedings as section 153 of the Income Tax Act 1961 provides different time-limit for each of the proceedings and therefore an order under section 144 of the Act 1961 in a proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is misleading, unworkable and inoperative in law. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2012 TaxPub(DT) 0603 (Kol-Trib) : (2011) 133 ITD 0111 : (2012) 144 TTJ 0384 : (2012) 067 DTR 0267

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Reassessment--Notice under section 148Furnishing of recorded reason required--AO observed that assessee had not deducted TDS as required, therefore he had formed an opinion that income had escaped assessment. Notice was issued under section 148 and case was reopened. AO passed assessment order under section 144 read with section 147 and debited certain expenditures and added certain income. Assessee contended that AO did not furnish him recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment. Held : On receiving the notice assessee is to first file the return of income and thereafter he can seek the reasons recorded for issuing the notice. AO is bound to furnish the reasons recorded within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons recorded, assessee is entitled to file objection to the issuance of notice. Accordingly AO had not followed the procedure . He had not issued the proper copy of reasons recorded to assessee within reasonable time. Therefore assessment was set aside and matter was remanded back.

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 148

IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH 'C' (THIRD MEMBER)

G.D. AGRAWAL, V.P. (AS A THIRD MEMBER) B.R. MITTAL, J.M. B.K. HALDAR AND C.D. RAO, A.M.

Kaushalendra Pratap Singh v. ITO

IT Appeal No. 1747 (Kol.) of 2010

A.Y. 2005-06

26 May, 2011

Appellant by : Rajen Dhar,

Respondent by : D.R. Singhal

ORDER

B.R. Mittal, J.M.

The assessee has filed this appeal to assessment year 2005-06 against the order of learned C.I.T.(A)-XIV, Kolkata dated 29-7-2010 on the following grounds :-

'1. For that learned Commission (Appeals) should have held that Assessment Order dated 29-12-2008 served on 5-1-2009 was barred by limitation, invalid and inoperative in law.

2. For that learned Commission (Appeals) should have held that proceedings under section 144 of the Income Tax Act 61 and that under section 147 of the Act are different proceedings as section 153 of the Income Tax Act 1961 provides different time-limit for each of the proceedings and therefore an order under section 144 of the Act 1961 in a proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is misleading, unworkable and inoperative in law.