Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Samanthapudi Lavanya Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)
Appeal Number : I.T.A.No.704/Viz/2019 to 706/Viz/2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/04/2021
Related Assessment Year : 2009-10 to 2011-12
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Samanthapudi Lavanya Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Conclusion: Since no fresh information was collected by AO or no information had come to the notice of AO in normal course, other than the information collected during the course of search from searched person therefore, as provided under sections 153A and 153C, search assessments was required to be made under section 153A or section 153C, but not under section 147.

Held:  The issue arose for consideration was whether AO was right making the assessments u/s 147 instead of invoking the jurisdiction u/s 153C. In the instant case, AO issued notice u/s 148 to reopen the assessment. Therefore, in view of the non-abstante clause begin with section 153A, AO had no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 reopen the assessment of those six assessment year which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of section 153A. There was no dispute that the joint receipt was seized during the course of search as mentioned by AO in the assessment order as well as the remand report and the assessment was made u/s 147 on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4), appraisal report and the joint receipt. All of them were directly related to the information found from the searched person consequent to the search u/s 132. Therefore, as provided u/s 153A and 153C, all the search assessments required to be made u/s 153A or 153C, but not u/s 147. No fresh information was collected by AO or no information had come to the notice of AO in normal course other than the information collected during the course of search from the searched person. Thus, assessee’s case was squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in G.Koteswara Rao. Department had not brought any other evidence to establish that the joint receipt was not seized during the search/s 132. Thus, the assumption of jurisdiction by AO u/s 147 was bad in law and the order of CIT(A) and the assessments framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) were quashed.

Assessment Analysis Evaluation Measure Business Analytics Technology concept

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031