Site iconSite icon SAG Infotech Official Tax Blog Upto 20% Off on Tax Software for You

ITAT: Reasons for Reassessment Can’t be Added, Deleted or Modified

Mumbai ITAT's Order for M/s. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) stated that the causes would have been recorded for opening the assessment again and is to be read since the same was recorded via the Assessing Officer and could not be increased.

The Assessing Officer, with a total income of Rs. 9,81,60,144 has fled assessment, since the taxpayer, M/s. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd has losses to show truly and fully material facts. The taxpayer has furnished complaints about the reopening of the assessment, which was discarded vide order on 10/11/2019.

Read also: Legal Solution for Assessment & Reassessment Notice U/S 148 for Assessee

The Assessing Officer vide order on 24/12/2019 has been filed under section 143 (3) r/w section 147 of the Act stated that the taxpayer losses to prove the creditworthiness and originality of the transaction with Silverson Logistics Private Ltd.

Kalyani Vincom Private Ltd, Assessing Officer stated that the funds were transferred from the stated entity to Highland Transport Private Ltd and Neelanchal Roadways Private Ltd, who in return has transferred Rs. 1,49,62,890 and Rs. 2,77,75,322 to the taxpayer’s company. In appeal CIT(A) vide impugned order sustained the assessment order both on jurisdiction and as per the merits.

It was clear from the record, it was only at the time of reassessment proceedings Assessing Officer alleged the transfer of funds from Kalyani Vincom Private Ltd within these two entities, which would nextly be transferred to the taxpayer.

A Coram consisting of Shri S Rifaur Rahman, accountant member, and Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, judicial member set aside the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the CIT(A), through upholding the order issued under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The taxpayer’s plea would be authorized.

Shri Piyush Chhajeda/w Shri Sumit Mantri represented the taxpayer and Shri Mehul Jain represented the revenue.

Case TitleM/s. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle
CitationITA No.574/Mum./2021
Date09/09/2022
Counsel for AppellantShri Piyush Chhajed, Shri Sumit Mantri
Counsel for RespondentShri Mehul Jain
Mumbai ITAT’s OrderRead Order
Exit mobile version