Case Law Details
Vineet Mittal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
In this case it is evident that the addition ultimately made by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment has no connection with the income for escapement of which the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. Thus, it is patent and obvious, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for assessing a particular item of income, whereas, instead of assessing that income he has added another item of income which was not the subject matter of reopening. The ratio laid down in the decisions cited before me by learned Counsel for the assessee makes it clear that the Assessing Officer can add other items of income along with the income for the escapement of which the assessment was reopened. However, without assessing that escaped income the Assessing Officer cannot make assessment of other items of income.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 29.06.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Meerut for the assessment year 2014-15. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:
1. “That CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the action of AO who invoked reassessment proceedings under section 147 on the basis of a vague reason that the cash deposit in bank was per se escaped income of appellant.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
