2016 (10) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in quashing the reassessment proceedings even though the assessee was aware of the reasons of reopening and also participated in the Assessment proceedings?" (B) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in deleting the depreciation disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the 'leased' assets?" 3. Re.: Question (A) (i) For the Assessment Year 1993-94, the regular assessment was completed by an order dated 26 March 1996 u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, on 9 December 1996, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s. 147 read with Section 148 of the Act, seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under Section 148 of the Act. On the aforesaid facts, the impugned order of the Tribunal by placing reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Siesta Steel Construction (P.) Ltd. vs. K.K. Shikare [1984] 17 Taxman 122(Bom.) page 547, CIT vs. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No.71/2006 and upon the decision of its coordinate bench in case of Tata International Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA Nos.3359 to 3369/Mum/2009 concluded that the nonsupply of reasons in support of the reopening notice would make the order passed thereon bad in law. Consequently, the impugned order allowed the appeal on issue of jurisdiction and in that view the issue on merits became academic. (iv) Mr. Malhotra, Counsel for the Revenue, submits that the Respondent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the obligation to supply reasons on the Assessing Officer was consequent to the decision of the Apex Court that GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Incometax Officer (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) rendered in 2003 while, in the present case, the reopening notice is dated 9 December 1996. Thus it submitted at the time when the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued and the time when assessment was completed, there was no such requirement to furnish to the assessee a copy of the reasons recorded. This submission is not correct. We find that the impugned order relies upon the decision of this Court in Seista Steel Construction (P.) Ltd. (supra) when it is held that in the absence of supply of reasons recorded for issue of reopening notice the as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X