9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equest to drop the reopened proceedings, substantiating that the claim for deduction under Section 54(F) was in order. Pursuant to the reply, the impugned order dated 09.10.2017, came to be passed rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner. The said rejection order dated 09.10.2017 is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 2. Heard Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. The main ground that arise for consideration in the present Writ Petition is that as to whether the respondent is justified in rejecting the objections to the notice under Section 148 of the Act without considering the merits raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the reassessment proceedings. Subsequently, when the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer & others reported in 2002 (125) Taxmann 963 (SC) had clarified that when the assessee seeks for reasons for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish the reasons and afford an opportunity to the assessee to file his objections to such reasoning and these objections are bound to be disposed of by the Assessing Officer, through a speaking order. 7. In view of the decision in GKN Driveshafts (I) Ltd., case (supra), the procedure adopted by the Assessing Officer had gained significance, who thereafter had commenced to pass a preliminary order on the obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the Assessing Officer was required only to justify his action of reopening the assessment through his notice under Section 148 of the Act, while considering the objections raised by the assessee, it would nullify the clarification issued in GKN Driveshafts (I) Ltd., case. In other words, when the Hon'ble Apex Court had in a clear and categorical terms spelt out that the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the objections of the assessee through a "speaking order", there is a duty casts on the Assessing Officer to consider each and every objections raised by the assessee in his reply to the notice under Section 148. A speaking order is not one which would run to a few pages quantitatively but, should be one which qualitatively ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to effectively raise his objections nor would it assist the Assessing officer to have his doubts clarified. 11. In the instant case, the reason assigned by the Assessing Officer for proposing to withdraw the deduction allowed under Section 54(F) of the Act is that the assessee owns more than one residential house on the date of transfer of the original asset. In his objections dated 12.01.2017, the assessee had attempted to clarify that he did not own more than one residential house at the time of sale of the original asset. This specific objection has been overruled by the Assessing Officer in the impugned order dated 09.10.2017, not only without assigning any reasons but also with an observation that there was no iota of doubt that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
