9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which arises in both these appeals. We have taken the matter for final hearing straightaway, as learned counsel for both parties have made their submissions on the aforesaid question of law. 3. The fact of the matter is in a narrow compass and taking note of the facts in brief would suffice for our purpose. These appeals pertain to the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The Assessing Officer (AO) had issued notice for reopening of the assessment under section 148 read with section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), pursuant to the information which the Assessing Officer had received from the Directorate of Revenue, Intelligence (DRI). 4. The assessee was engaged in exporting readymade ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the assessment under section 147 of the Act as without jurisdiction. Another ground of challenge was that the Assessing Officer had wrongly rejected the books of account and also wrongly withdrew the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80HHC of the Act. The assessee was also aggrieved by the action of the Assessing Officer taking note of the recourse to section 144 of the Act. 6. The assessee carried the matter further by filing appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal has adopted a short-cut method. It did not decide the appeal on the merits. It has not even touched the issue as to whether the reassessment proceedings were valid or not. It, thus, ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19. 7. In the present case, the assessee did not ask for these "reasons to believe". The assessee rather participated in the reassessment proceedings. When the reassessment orders were passed and the assessee felt aggrieved thereagainst, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In this appeal, he challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings, which was the course of action available to the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), thus, could examine the issue as to whether the assessment reopened was valid or not. Once the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee and against that the second appeal was also preferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel for the respondent/assessee. He has pointed out that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while repelling the challenge laid by the assessee to the reassessment proceedings, as more than that the Assess- ing Officer has duly recorded the "reasons to believe" as per which the reopening of the assessment is justified and on this ground, the challenge to the validity of the notice is turned down. Learned counsel for the respondent is justified in his submission that at least at this stage, the assessee could have been provided with the "reasons to believe" recorded by the Assessing Officer to expect the assessee to make his submission before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) predicated on the said "reasons to believe". Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
