TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r.w.s 143(3) of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. - decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 5730/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 30-8-2018 - SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv For The Revenue : Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-19, New Delhi dated 31.07.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. 2. Vide letter dated 01.03.2018, the assessee has revised the grounds of appeal, which read as under: 1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t were provided to the assessee and on 13.07.2016, the assessee filed objections to the reasons so recorded. The objections raised by the assessee were disposed off by the Assessing Officer on 13.12.2016. However, the Assessing Officer framed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2016. 4. The bone of contention is as to whether the Assessing Officer has rightly framed the impugned order within 16 days of disposing of the objections of the assessee. 5. The answer is given by the coordinate bench in the case of Metaplast Engineering P. Ltd in ITA No. 5780/DEL/2014 wherein the co-ordinate bench has considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel 378 ITR 596. The releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been referred to in detail but what has been stated is that the case has not been reopened merely on the basis of a change of opinion. The fact that came to light during the assessment proceedings for assessment year 2011-12 are the basis for reopening the case pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08. Since the petitioner is stated to have filed a new return of income, he was called upon to attend the office with the information required on 13th March, 2015. The petitioner addressed a letter on 12th March, 2015 and pointed out that the communication dated 5th March, 2015 was received on 12th March, 2015, but no speaking order has been passed rejecting the objections and which is required by the law laid down in the case of GKN Driveshaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
