Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1925 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - passing the assessment order without considering the objections - HELD THAT:- In the present case, we observe that the Assessing Officer has violated the directions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. [2007 (1) TMI 159 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in not allowing four weeks time to the assessee before passing the assessment order after rejecting the objections. The time line set out by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in allowing four weeks time to the assessee is binding on the Assessing Officer. The violation of the directions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court would make the assessment order bad in law. Also in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2014 (2) TMI 659 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in similar circumstances where the assessment order was passed in undue haste has condemned the action of Assessing Officer and has set aside the assessment order. In the present case objections against reopening were disposed of by the Assessing Officer on 05-03-2015. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 16-03-2015 i.e. within 11 days of passing of the order rejecting objections. There was no time with the assessee to avail remedy against rejection of objections. Thus, there was clear violation of principles of natural justice and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. Since, the Assessing Officer has violated the time line in passing the assessment order, the assessment order is liable to be set aside. We hold and direct accordingly. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the issue of jurisdiction alone.
|