DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MRS ASHA JAFFREY
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
M.K. Chatturvedi, Vice President -
(1.) THIS appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 3-1-2007 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals)-XII, Chennai and relates to the assessment year 2002-03.
(2.) The solitary issue raised in this appeal relates to the deletion of the addition of Rs. 9 lakhs, being the additional income offered by the assessee voluntarily during the course of survey, by holding the reassessment proceedings invalid.
We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us and the precedents relied upon. The assessee is a doctor by profession. She was running scan centres in different parts of Chennai alongwith her husband Dr. B.I. Jaffrey. On 6-3-2002 a survey was conducted under Section 133A of the Act. The assessee agreed to offer additional income of Rs. 9 lakhs. The offer was made in response to the observations made by the ADIT during the course of survey that the assessee did not maintain regular books of accounts as required under Section 44AA of the Act and had understated the professional receipts.
(3.) ON 3-10-2002 the assessee filed a return admitting a taxable income of Rs. 6,19,856/-. Additional income of Rs. 9 lakhs as agreed to at the time of survey was not offered for taxation. Ex consequenti proceedings under Section 147 were initiated by issuance of notice under Section 148 on 2-9-2004. The only point on which the Commissioner(Appeals) adumbrated his decision is that the material gathered at the time of survey were before the Assessing Officer at the time when the assessee filed the return and when the Assessing Officer did not issue notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed period of one year whether it is open for the Assessing Officer to resort to the provisions of Section 147 based on the same material gathered during the course of survey. In his opinion it amounted to change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer. As such issuance of notice under Section 148 was not valid. The Commissioner(Appeals) did not render any decision on the merits of the case.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.