TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable time to the assessee for challenging his order, it is open to him to pass an assessment order. Since such compliance has not been made by the Assessing Officer in the present case, we hold the impugned assessment order dated 03.10.2008 as not valid and the same is held as void ab initio. See G.K.N. Drive Shaft (India) Ltd. vs. ITO [2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 3061 /Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2015 - SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri PC Yadav, Adv. For The Respondent : Shri BRR Kumar, Sr.DR ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has questioned first appellate order on the following grounds: 1. That the Learned CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. 148 was issued twice for the same assessment year. 5. That the impugned order issued by Assessing Officer is bad in awl as he once again fails to furnish the reasons of notice u/s. 148 before proceeding with assessment and the Learned CIT(Appeals)- XXVIII has erred on facts and in law in upholding the same. 6. That the impugned order is bad in law as it is based upon irrelevant considerations. The order of the Learned CIT(Appeals)- XXVIII are not based upon the facts of the case but on assumptions and surmises. 7. That the impugned order is illegal, bad in law and in violation of the contemporary principles of natural justice as well as established judicial pronouncements. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Learned AR submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N. Drive Shaft (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (supra), the ratios laid down is that the Assessing Officer ought to have disposed of the objection raised by the assessee to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice under sec. 148 of the Act by passing a separate order and proceed for reassessment only after giving an opportunity to the assessee to question the said order of the Assessing Officer rejecting the objection of the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer has failed to abide by such ratio of the above decision as directed by the ITAT, the rejection of the objection by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 03.10.2008 is bad in law and the same should be dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia is maintainable where no order has been passed by the Assessing Officer deciding objection filed by the assessee under sec. 148 of the Act and assessment order has been passed or the order deciding an objection under sec. 148 of the Act has not been communicated to the assessee and assessment order has been passed or the objection filed under sec. 148 has been decided along with the assessment order. If the objection under sec. 148 has been rejected without there being any tangible material available with the Assessing Officer to form an opinion that there is escapement of income from assessment and in absence of reasons having direct link with the formation of the belief, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable. The As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
