9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als and cross objections are taken up together for adjudication and are decided vide this common order. 2. The common facts for deciding both these appeals and cross objections are : Both the assessees are part of Sanklecha group. The assessee in ITA No. 1937/PUN/2016 filed her return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on 06-03-2009 declaring total income of Rs. 1,18,980/-. The income returned was accepted u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The assessee in ITA No. 1938/PUN/2016 did not file any return of income u/s. 139 of the Act. The assessee filed her return of income for the impugned assessment year on 03-03-2014 declaring total income as Nil in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessees had entered into development agreement with M/s. Vascon Dwellings Pvt. Ltd. in respect of property bearing S. No. 82/1/1/1+2+3 at Wadala Shivar, Nashik. The Assessing Officer further noticed that the aforesaid property was purchased in the name of both the assessees along with Smt. Sushilabai Kachardas Sanklecha (hereinafter referred to as "the co-owner"). A registered development agreement was e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of GKN Drive Shaft (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO 259 ITR 19 without appreciating the fact that the AO. had disposed off the objection filed by the assessee by way of making a noting in the order sheet and signed by the AR. of the assessee? 2. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in quashing the reassessment order u/s 147 passed by the AO. by not considering section 2928 of the Income-tax Act-1961? 3. The appellant prays leave to add, alter, clarify, amend or to withdraw any grounds of appeal as and when the occasion demands." Identical grounds have been raised by the Department in ITA No. 1938/PUN/2016 assailing the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. Shri Pramod Shingte appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently supporting the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that the assessees had sought reasons for re-opening the assessment and thereafter had filed objections against re-opening of the assessment. The Assessing Officer without disposing of the objections as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Dri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of facts clearly show that the objections raised by the assessee were not disposed of by passing a speaking order. Not admitting but assuming, even if it is considered to be a valid order for disposing of objections, sufficient opportunity was not afforded to assessee by Assessing Officer for challenging such order as has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 296 ITR 90. The Hon'ble High Court has held that the Assessing Officer shall not proceed further in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of service of order on objections, if they are rejected by Assessing Officer. In the present case, the non-speaking rejection order has been passed on 24-02-2014 and immediately on the next day i.e. 25-02-2014 assessment order has been passed. Therefore, the alleged order disposing of the objections in the case of Smt. Nirmala Vijay Sanklecha cannot be considered as a valid order. The Assessing Officer violated the principle of natural justice and the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 8. We have heard the submissions made by representativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .w.s. 147 of the Act, without affording opportunity to the assessee to exhaust remedy, if any available for assailing said order before appropriate forum. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has held that where the Assessing Officer reject the objections filed by the assessee with regard to re-opening of assessment, the Assessing Officer shall not proceed further with the same for a period of four weeks from the date of service of order on rejections. Thus, the Assessing Officer violated the conditions laid down by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in accelerating finalization of assessment. 14. The procedure that has emerged from judgments discussed above is, that the Assessing Officer is duty bound to decide the objections of the assessee against initiation of reassessment proceedings by passing a separate speaking order. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer shall give four weeks time to the assessee from the date of service of the said order before proceeding with the finalization of assessment. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of KSS Petron Private Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
