आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ (cid:15)ायपीठ, चे(cid:20)ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:22)ी मनु कु मार िग(cid:27)र ,(cid:15)ाियक सद(cid:30) एवं (cid:22)ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:30) के सम&

BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.490/Chny/2025 (िनधा(cid:5)रण वष(cid:5) / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Shri Moorthy, Vs The Assistant Commissioner #96/A1, NSP Gardens, Behind of Income Tax, Southgate Hotel, Circle-2, Seelanaickenpatty Bye Passm Salem.

Salem-636 201.

PAN : AILPM-6975-H (अपीलाथ(cid:15)/Appellant) ((cid:16)(cid:17)यथ(cid:15)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:15)क(cid:20)ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCA (cid:16)(cid:17)यथ(cid:15)क(cid:20)ओरस/ेRespondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाईक(cid:8)तारीख/Date of hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदशे / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 09.11.2023 for Assessment Year 2011-12.

2. The registry has noted delay of 384 days in filing the appeal. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit by the Assessee, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3. The assessee objected the legality of the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on the following grounds:-

a) As could be seen from para 2 page 2 of the assessment order, the reasons recorded for reopening is purchase of property by the assessee for a consideration of Rs.43,29,500/-. As could be seen from the assessment order no addition has been made in respect of the above issue but addition has been made on other grounds.

b) In the grounds of appeal filed in ground no. 5, the assessee has relied upon two judicial pronouncements to support the ground.

c) Further reliance is placed upon the order of the decision of The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tractor and Farm equipment reported in 409 ITR 369.

d) The First Appellate Authority in not accepting the decision of Bombay High court in the case of Jet Airways Private Limited reported in 331 ITR 236 has relied upon the decision of Karnataka High court and Punjab and Haryana High court.

e) Further reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd reported in 88 ITR 192, wherein it has been held that when contrary views has been taken by two high courts when there is no jurisdictional high court decision, the decision favorable to the assessee has to be adapted.

4. Per contra the ld. DR Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT for the revenue relied upon the impugned order and read out paras 9.1 and 9.2 of the ld.

CIT(A) order to bolster her arguments.

5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record and case laws cited at the bar. We have also gone through the paras 9 to 9.2 of the ld . CIT(A) order.

6. On the similar issue, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Martech Peripherals (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle IV(1), Chennai [2017] 81 taxmann.com 73 (Madras)/[2017] 394 ITR 733 (Madras) has held as under:

20. The petitioner/assessee, however, challenges this action of the respondents/Revenue, on the ground that it was not permissible for the respondents/Revenue to tax the forfeited share application money, by taking recourse to provisions of Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act, unless it assesses to tax that income with reference to which the Assessing Officer had formed reason to believe (within the meaning of Section 147), that it had escaped assessment.

21. To my mind, a careful reading of Section 147 of the Act would show that it empowers an Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment, if, he has reason to believe, that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant year, ''and also bring to tax