Case Law Details
Raj Bala Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
In the instant case, the AO had initiated proceedings u/s 147 for escapement of income of Rs.9,43,897/- which was the returned income filed prior to issue of notice u/s 148 in the belated return and as well as in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 and since the AO has accepted the said returned income and proceeded to make various other additions without issuing fresh notice u/s 147/148, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the AO has exceeded his jurisdiction in reassessing issues other than the issues in respect of which the proceedings are initiated and reasons for the initiation of those proceedings cease to survive. We, therefore, hold that the various other additions made by the AO are not in accordance with the law being without jurisdiction and, therefore, are to be deleted. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the grounds raised by the assessee on merit are not being adjudicated being academic in nature.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
ITA Nos.3396 & 3398/Del/2017 filed by the respective assessees are directed against the separate orders dated 31st March, 2017 of the CIT(A)-30, New ITA Nos.3396 to 3399/Del/2017 Delhi relating to assessment year 2010-11. ITA Nos. 3397 & 3399/Del/2017 filed by the respective assessees are directed against the separate orders dated 21st April, 2017 confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
ITA No.3396/Del/2017 (A.Y. 2010-11).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
