TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring. We have gone through our record and observed that the department has not argued the case law mentioned in the Miscellaneous Application i.e. S.Narayanappa Vs. CIT [ 1966 (9) TMI 36 - SUPREME COURT] during the appeal hearing. Therefore, the ITAT has no occasion to consider the decision relied upon by the department. Decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in S.Narayanappa vs.CIT [ 1966 (9) TMI 36 - SUPREME COURT] was delivered much earlier than the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd [ 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] and related to validity issue of notice under section 34(1) of 1922 Act. Subsequently Hon ble Supreme Court considered the issue in G.K.N.Drive Shafts(India) Ltd vs CIT in [ 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in para No.9 of the order which reads as under : 9. The AO has completed the assessment without communicating the reasons recorded for issue of notice u/s 148, in spite of the specific request made by the assessee for furnishing the reasons. As per the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO, it is obligatory on the part of AO to communicate the reasons on furnishing the return of income. The assessee in response to the notice issued u/s 148 submitted a letter to the AO to treat the returns filed earlier as returns in response to the notice issued u/s 148. Thus the assessee has complied with the mandate of Hon ble Supreme Court judgement cited supra but the AO failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n holding that an order passed in reassessment proceedings are bad in law in the absence of reasons recorded for issuing a reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act being furnished to the assessee when sought for. It is axiomatic that power to reopen a completed assessment under the Act is an exceptional power and whenever revenue seeks to exercise such power, they must strictly comply with the prerequisite conditions viz. reopening of reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment which would warrant the reopening of an assessment. 9.2. In the instant case, the AO had issued notice u/s 148 and the assessee has complied with the notice and requested for reasons. The AO com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment further stated that it has brought, the decision of S.Narayanappa in MA No.28-30/Viz/2018 in the case of M/s Sarvaraya Sugars Ltd. dated 07.12.2018, therefore submitted that since the decision of S.Narayanappa Vs. CIT is available on the records of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam and the same was not considered at the time of disposal of the appeal, the same amounts to mistake apparent from record hence, requested to recall the order and readjudicate the appeal. 3. During the hearing of the Miscellaneous Application, the Ld.DR relied on the contents of the Miscellaneous Application. On the other hand, the Ld.AR submitted that the Hon ble ITAT has considered all the facts and the case laws and decided the issue on merits as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Associates. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2) (2), Bangalore, [2018] 89 taxmann.com 192 (Bangalore - Trib.) held as under: 7. Section 254 of the Act reads as follows : (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within [six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed], with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under subsection (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Mc. Dowell Co. Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 215/177 Taxman 317 after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal by reconsidering the application of principles laid down by superior Courts to the facts of the case or by reconsidering its findings recorded, or by reconsidering the application of the relevant provisions of law to the facts of the case. Such a course is not permissible under Section 254(2) of the Act, as held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. In this factual and legal matrix of the case, we dismiss this M P filed by the assessee in the case on hand. Further the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in S.Narayanappa vs.CIT 63 ITR 219 was delivered much earlier than the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd and related to validity issue of notice under section 34(1) of 1922 Act. Subse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
