TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter disposing of the objections of the assessee passed the impugned re-assessment order Dated 28.12.2017. Thus, no time of four weeks have been granted to the assessee to take remedial action in the matter. See SMT. KAMLESH GOEL VERSUS THE I.T.O, WARD 59 (3) , NEW DELHI [ 2018 (9) TMI 102 - ITAT DELHI] Thus re-assessment order Dated 28.12.2017 framed under section 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is bad in Law and deserves to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA.No.4560/Del./2019 - - - Dated:- 1-1-2021 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Shantanu Jain, Advocate For the Revenue : Mr. Sri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-34, New Delhi, Dated 18.02.2019, for the A.Y. 2010-2011, challenging the re-assessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, addition of ₹ 10 lakhs on account of share capital under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and addition of ₹ 17,500/- on account of commission paid. 2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of the assessee vide Order Dated 05.12.2017 PB-51 and 52. He has submitted that A.O. immediately after disposing of the objections of the assessee on 05.12.2017 passed the impugned assessment order under section 147 read with section 143(3) on 28.12.2017. Therefore, A.O. has not given four weeks time to the assessee to seek legal remedy after rejection of the objections and within 23 days passed the assessment order. Therefore, reopening of the assessment is clearly bad in Law and is nullity and liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Order of the ITAT, Delhi A-SMC Bench in the case of Smt. Kamlesh Goel, Delhi vs., Income Tax Officer, Ward-59(3), New Delhi in ITA.No.5730/Del./2017, Dated 30.08.2018 which is reproduced as under : IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI 'A-SMC' BENCH,: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5730/DEL/2017 [Assessment Year: 2009-10] Smt. Kamlesh Goel Vs. The I.T.O 22, 2nd Floor, Ward 59(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short]. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on 28.03.2016. On 04.07.2016, reasons for reopening assessment 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 relevant finding reads as under: Further, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Jayant Patel (supra) , learned AO should have allowed four weeks' time to the assessee to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccept the objections to the reopening of the assessment or the reasons recorded, he shall not proceed further in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt or service of the said order on the assessee. Since the order dated 5th March, 2015 is stated to be rejecting the objections, then, the assessee prayed that for a period of four weeks from that order, no steps should be taken. 23. However, as has been rightly contended by Mr. Pardiwalla, ignoring this mandate in the decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been further reiterated in M/s.Aroni Commercials Ltd. (supra), the impugned assessment order has been passed, that is dated 27th March, 2015. That is clearly within the period of four weeks from 5th March, 2015. The first contention of Mr.Pardiwalla, therefore, deserves acceptance as nothing contrary to the same has been placed before us. 7. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 framed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 5730/DEL/2017 is allowed. 5. On the other h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 59(3), New Delhi (supra) in which the Tribunal has followed the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel 378 ITR 596 (Bom.) in which the Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd., vs., ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) is also considered. Thus, following the same we hold that re-assessment order Dated 28.12.2017 framed under section 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is bad in Law and deserves to be quashed. In view of the above , the decision of the Hon ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-2, Vadodara vs., Sagar Developers (supra) cited by the Ld. D.R. would not support the case of the Revenue. Further it is well settled Law that if there are two views are possible, then the view in favour of the assessee shall have to be followed for deciding the matter in dispute. Therefore, the contention of the Ld. D.R. is rejected that matter may be remanded to the A.O. for doing the needful. In view of the above, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the reassessment proceedings. Resultantly, all additions stand deleted. In view of the above, there is no need to decide the other issues raised in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
