TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Pankaj Gargh, AR. For The Revenue : Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR. ORDER PER, A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is assessee s appeal for A. Y. 2005-06, raising the concise grounds as under: 1. Because the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is wrong, bad in law, arbitrary, without allowing proper and reasonable opportunity and against the principal of natural justice. 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and arbitrarily erred both in law and on facts in ignoring, in noLadjudicating and in dismissing the grounds taken before him. In brief the following legal grounds were taken before Ld. CIT(A) objecting to the proceedings and the assessment framed:- (i) Reasons recorded do not show any independ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Speaking Order. 4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and arbitrarily erred both in law and on facts in ignoring, in not adjudicating and in dismissing the grounds taken before him. In brief the following grounds objecting the addition made by the Assessing Officer were taken before Ld. CIT(A). (i) Addition of ₹ 1,41,37,504/- under the head Long Term Capital Gain is wrong, bad in law, arbitrary, against the facts of the case and deserves to be deleted. (ii) Assessing Officer erred in applying provisions of section 50C ignoring the fact that the value to be adopted for purpose of stamp duty is under dispute and subjudice before Hon ble Allahabad High Court. (iii) Assessing Officer has legally and factually e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not been chllenged by the assessee. 6. Having considered the matter in the light of the rival contentions and the material placed on record, we find that in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in pursuance of the reasons recorded by the AO to believe escapement of income, the assessee had, in fact, filed a return of income. Now, the question is, whether the AO was correct in deciding the objections raised by the assessee against the initiation of reassessment proceedings and the issuance of the notice u/s 148 of the Act, in the assessment order itself. 7. In GKN Driveshafts (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: However, we clarify that when a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed under section 148 and serve a copy of the order on the assessee. And after giving some reasonable time to the assessee for challenging his order, it was open to him to pass an assessment order. This was not done by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the order on the objection to the notice under section 148 and the assessment order passed under the Act deserves to be quashed. 10. In, M/s Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company. Vs. Commissioner Of Income-tax , 308 ITR 38 (Del), it has been held that deviation from the directions issued by the Hon ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (supra) would entail nullifying the proceedings. As such, the CIT(A) is incorrect on this score also. 11. In KSS Petron Private Ltd. vs. ACIT , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
