IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH , CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1247/CHD/2012 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Haryana State Agricultural Vs ACIT, Marketing Board, Ward 3, Panchkula. Panchkula. PAN: AAALH0016R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Harish Nayyar Respondent by : Shri Ravi Sarangal,CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2016 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM This appeal by assessee is directed against order of ld. CIT(Appeals) Panchkula dated 16.09.2012 for assessment year 2005-06 dated 16.09.2012 for assessment year 2005-06. 2. We have heard ld. Representatives of both parties and perused findings of authorities below. 3. Ground No. 1 is general and need no adjudication. ld. counsel for assessee did not press ground Nos. 2 3, 4 and 5. These grounds are, therefore, dismissed being not pressed. 4. ld. counsel for assessee only pressed ground No. 2 with regard to re-opening of assessment under section 147 of Act. 5. Briefly facts of case are that assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring nil income. assessment under section 143(3) of Act was completed on 24.12.2007 at total income of Rs. 10.79 Crores. income of assessee was re-computed on 28.12.2010 under section 143(3)/254 of Income Tax Act at Rs. 1.59 Crore. Later on, assessment was re- opened by issuing notice under section 148 on 29.03.2011 after recording reasons. notice was served upon assessee on 29.03.2011. assessee was supplied copy of reasons recorded under section 148 of Act. Assessing Officer, after considering explanation of assessee with regard to roller charges received at Rs. 71,91076/- held same to be revenue receipt and 'income from other sources' and made addition of Rs. 71,91,076/-. It may be noted here that assessee did not challenge re-opening of assessment before Assessing Officer at re-assessment proceedings. 6. assessee challenged re-opening of assessment before ld. CIT(Appeals) only on reason that re-opening of assessment is made beyond time 3 limit of four years from end of relevant assessment year i.e. 31.03.2010. ld. CIT(Appeals) noted Section 149(1)(b) of Act in findings whereby i t i s p r o v i d e d t h t , I f f o u r y e r s , b u t n o t mo r e t h n s i x years, have elapsed from end of relevant s s e s s me n t year unless i n c o me chargeable to tax wh i c h h s e s c p e d s s e s s me n t m o u n t s t o o r i s l i k e l y t o m o u n t t o o n e l k h r u p e e s o r mo r e f o r t h t y e r . ld. CIT(Appeals) further noted that in this case income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment, amounting to more than Rs. 1 lac for assessment year under appeal, therefore, notice issued under section 148 on 29.03.2011 is well within time limit of six years as per clause (b) to Section 149(1) of Act. This ground of appeal of assessee was accordingly, dismissed. 7. ld. counsel for assessee similarly submitted before us that re-opening of assessment beyond four years is invalid. However, ld. counsel for assessee was not able to point out any illegality in order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in referring to clause (b) of Section 149(1) of Act. Since in case of assessee, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment was in sum of Rs. 71,91,076/-, therefore, provisions of Section 149(1)(b) would apply in case of assessee. ld. counsel for assessee has not been able to point out any irregularity or illegality in order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in rejecting this ground of appeal of 4 assessee. This ground of appeal of assessee is accordingly, dismissed. 8. No other point is argued before us. 9. assessee did not challenge addition on merit, therefore, there is no merit in appeal of assessee. same is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. In result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court. Sd/- Sd/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26th September,2016. Poonam Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT,DR Assistant Registrar, ITAT/CHD Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v. ACIT, Ward–3, Panchkula