Anugrah Varshney v. ITO - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2016 TaxPub(DT) 1895 (Agra-Trib) Anugrah Varshney v. ITO INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Reassessment--ValidityAO exceeded jurisdiction--Assessee challenged the reassessment order on the ground that no addition was made by AO on the issue raised in the reason recorded for reopening, therefore, the validity of the proceedings under section 147 was bad in law. AO rejected the contention of assessee. *Held:* Following the judgment in case of Jet Airways India v. CIT (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), it was held that in the absence of any addition having been made on incomes which AO had reason to believe had escaped assessment, no addition of any other income could have been made and that AO had exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order under section 147. Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147 *Followed:*Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del), Jet Airways India v. CIT (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and ITO v. Smt. Urmila Singhal ITA No. 286/Ag/2011 dt. 20-7-2012. *REFERRED :* NTPC Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). FAVOUR : In assessee's favour A.Y. : 2003-04 IN THE ITAT, AGRA BENCH BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. & ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, A.M. Anugrah Varshney v. ITO ITA No. 134/Ag/2014 A.Y. 2003-04 5 April, 2016 Appellant by: Dipendra Mohan, Prathna Jalan, Respondent by: Waseem Arshad. ORDER SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2016 TaxPub(DT) 1895 (Agra-Trib)

Anugrah Varshney v. ITO

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Reassessment--ValidityAO exceeded jurisdiction--Assessee challenged the reassessment order on the ground that no addition was made by AO on the issue raised in the reason recorded for reopening, therefore, the validity of the proceedings under section 147 was bad in law. AO rejected the contention of assessee. Held: Following the judgment in case of Jet Airways India v. CIT (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom), it was held that in the absence of any addition having been made on incomes which AO had reason to believe had escaped assessment, no addition of any other income could have been made and that AO had exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order under section 147.

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147

Followed:Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del), Jet Airways India v. CIT (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and ITO v. Smt. Urmila Singhal ITA No. 286/Ag/2011 dt. 20-7-2012.

REFERRED : NTPC Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC).

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour

A.Y. : 2003-04

IN THE ITAT, AGRA BENCH

BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. & ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, A.M.

Anugrah Varshney v. ITO

ITA No. 134/Ag/2014

A.Y. 2003-04

5 April, 2016

Appellant by: Dipendra Mohan, Prathna Jalan,

Respondent by: Waseem Arshad.

ORDER