Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Tinplate Company of India Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3 (1) , Kol. & Others

2017 (9) TMI 742 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Reopening of assessment - impugned order does not return any finding with regard to the objection raised by the petitioner - Held that:- It is incumbent upon the authority to consider and decide the objection raised by the petitioner in respect of the reasons given for reopening the assessment under Section 147(2) read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the instant case, the impugned order not having dealt with the objections raised, the Assessing Officer ought not to have proceede .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icer to dispose of the objections raised by the petitioner on July 26, 2017 to the reasons for invoking the Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order to him as prayed for on behalf of the Department. - WP No. 525 of 2017 - Dated:- 6-9-2017 - Debangsu Basak, J. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. For the petitioner Mr. P.K. Drolia, Adv. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s transferring the concerned officer with effect from May 31, 2017. Consequently, the petitioner took the liberty of not filing the reply to the notice on May 29, 2017. Rather an application dated May 26, 2017 was made seeking adjournment of the date of hearing for the reasons and filing of the objections with regard thereto. On July 26, 2017, the petitioner filed the objection with regard to the reasons for the proposed reopening of the accounts. The petitioner did not hear anything from the co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

breach of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing at the stage of consideration of the objection to the reasons for reopening as well as the assessment year. Moreover, the Assessing Officer ought not to have passed a combined order as done in the present case. The objections raised by the petitioner to the reasons given ought to have dealt with by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer should have passed the order o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ding of the impugned order and submits that, nobody of the petitioner appeared pursuant to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. By a notice dated March 31, 2017, the authorities proposed to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2010-2011 in respect of the petitioner. The authorities provided the reasons for doing so to the petitioner. The petitioner initially applied .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version