Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 1920 2014 SLD 1920 (2014) 367 ITR 769
Punjab and Haryana High Court
I.T.A. Nos. 505 & 454 of 2009 (O & M), JULY 17, 2014
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND, JASPAL SINGH, JJ
Dinesh Goyal, Advocate for the Appellant. Pankaj Jain, Sr. Advocate and Divya Suri, Advocate for the
Respondent

Commissioner of IncomE tax

v.

Mehak Finvest (P.) Ltd.

Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - This order shall dispose of I. T. A. Nos. 505 and 454 of 2009 as, according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved in both the cases is similar. However, the facts have been extracted from I. T. A. No. 505 of 2009. 2. I. T. A. No. 505 of 2009 has been preferred by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"), against the order dated January 20, 2009, annexure A.4 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (in short, "the Tribunal"), for the assessment year 2000-01, claiming the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in concluding that the Assessing Officer could not have assessed the income chargeable to tax which has come to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under section 147 though was not the basis for reopening of the proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law to conclude that once the Assessing Officer had not made any addition on the income which form the basis for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act then the Assessing Officer was precluded in law from having made the additions qua other income chargeable to tax, which escaped assessment and came to the notice of the Assessing Officer during the course of the proceedings under section 147 ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law to conclude that the proceedings under section 147 were vitiated though there was no challenge to the reopening proceedings at the instance of the assessee ?" 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in I. T. A. No. 505 of 2009 may be noticed. The assessee is a private limited company. It filed regular return of income on November 30, 2000, for the assessment year 2000-01 declaring a net taxable income of "nil", which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492