TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (India) Ltd.[ 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT ] has held that the AO has to dispose of the objections if filed by the assessee by way of speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. However, in the present case there has been no disposal of objections filed by the assessee. The case of the assessee is further fortified by the decision in the case of Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [ 2016 (3) TMI 179 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] as held that passing a draft assessment order without having disposal of objections filed by the assessee to the reasons recorded in support of the notice the draft assessment order was not sustainable being without jurisdiction. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.958/MUM/2016 - - - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s raised by the assessee for reopening the assessment. 4. The facts in brief are that return was filed on 12.09.2009 declaring income of ₹ 8,89,240/- followed by scrutiny proceedings which culminated in passing of assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act on 14.10.2011 determining the total income at ₹ 9,07,230/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from DGIT(Inv.) vide letter dated 26.12.2013 that assessee is the beneficiary of a hawala racket operating in the market and accordingly after issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act on 28.01.2014. The said notice was replied by the assessee vide letter dated 04.02.2014 submitting that the jurisdiction rests with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the AO to hold that assessee has raised objections after the receipt of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and not for the notice issued under section 148 reopening the assessment proceedings. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the non disposal of objections filed by the assessee against reopening of assessment proceedings goes to the route of the jurisdiction of the AO by relying upon the decision of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO Others (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). The Ld. A.R. further relied on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.) and submitted before the Bench that the reassessment proceedings were being without jurisdiction and should be qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing a draft assessment order without having disposal of objections filed by the assessee to the reasons recorded in support of the notice the draft assessment order was not sustainable being without jurisdiction. Similar ratio has been laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of KSS Petro Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.224 of 2014 (Bom. HC), CIT vs. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 234 Taxman 494 (Del.) and DCIT vs. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development in ITA No.4964/M/2014 dated 28.10.2016. Considering the facts of the assessee s case in the light of the ratio laid down by the decisions of Apex Court, jurisdictional court and other judicial forum, we are of the considered view that the assessment framed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
