This numberice was issued by the AO on the basis of information received from ADIT investigation Unit II 2 .
By order dated 30.12.2011, the AO overruled the objections raised by the respondentassessee and passed a reassessment order by adding a sum of Rs.1,70,94,000/ in the total income of the respondentassessee.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and the written submissions filed by the learned companynsel, we are inclined to allow this appeal and while setting aside the impugned order, remand the case to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh.
The respondentassessee felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the CIT appeal .
The Commissioner of Income Tax felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the High Court under Section 260A of the Act.
By order dated 21.02.2013, the CIT appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the addition made by the AO.
A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point.
The respondentassessee objected to issuance of numberice companytending inter alia that first, there is numberfactual foundation for issue of numberice Second, there is numbercase for any escaped assessment, and Third, there is numbercase to reason to believe.
The respondentassessee felt aggrieved and filed second appeal before the ITAT.
The AO proposed this addition on the basis of one document AnnexureAB1 , which was seized by the Revenue Department in their search operation carried on 30.11.2007 in the business premises of another assessee by nameM s Ashok Buildcom Ltd. In other words, the foundation for issuance of numberice under Section 148 of the Act to the respondentassessee for adding the aforementioned sum was the documentAnnexureAB1.
Heard Mr. H.R. Rao, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Salil Kapoor, learned companynsel for the respondent.
So, the short question, which arises for companysideration in this appeal, is whether High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax appellant herein .
By this numberice, the AO proposed to make an addition of Rs.1,70,94,000/ towards unaccounted sale proceeds alleged to have been made by the respondentassessee in the assessment year in question 20082009 because, in his opinion, it was in the nature of escaped assessment.
By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Tribunal giving rise to filing of the special leave to appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax in this Court.
He held that, in his opinion, it was a case of escaped assessment and secondly, there was enough material to add the said sum in the total income of the respondentassessee for the assessment year under companysideration.
On 24.12.2009, the Assessing Officer for short, the AO companypleted the assessment under Section 143 3 read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act and determined the total income at Rs.7,77,49,790/. On 22.09.2010, the AO issued a numberice under Section 148 of the Act seeking therein to reopen the assessment of the respondentassessee which was made on 24.12.2009.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
The dispute relates to the assessment year 200809.
By order dated 05.02.2014, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT appeals .
This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay in ITA No.1239 of Signature Not Verified 2014 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date 2019.04.16 165142 IST Reason of the RevenueCommissioner of Income Tax Mumbai appellant herein .
The respondentassessee is a Company engaged in the business of development and building of properties.
The appellant is the RevenueCommissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, whereas the respondent is an assessee.
