TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment order. In the present case objections against reopening were disposed of by the Assessing Officer on 05-03-2015. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 16-03-2015 i.e. within 11 days of passing of the order rejecting objections. There was no time with the assessee to avail remedy against rejection of objections. Thus, there was clear violation of principles of natural justice and the law laid down by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court. Since, the Assessing Officer has violated the time line in passing the assessment order, the assessment order is liable to be set aside. We hold and direct accordingly. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the issue of jurisdiction alone. - ITA No.656/PUN/2017, ITA No.1078/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 23-5-2018 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, AM And Shri Vikas Awasthy, JM Assessee by : Shri V.L. Jain Revenue by : Smt. Nirupama Kotru ORDER Vikas Awasthy, These cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Pune dated 01-12-2016 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The brief fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore reopening the assessment, however, the enquiry report on the basis of which assessment has been reopened was never supplied to the assessee. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has concluded that no material was received by the assessee against invoice and only bogus purchases were made. These findings by the Assessing Officer are only based on surmises. The assessee during the proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had furnished the copies of ledger extracts of the alleged Hawala dealers, the copies of invoices raised by the vendors, the copies of the weightment slips and transport invoices confirming delivery of goods, the copy of the bank statement highlighting the payments made to the vendors, the quantitative data showing quantity reconciliation and the copies of the Sales bills along with corresponding purchases. The Assessing Officer without applying his own independent mind has proceeded on to initiate reassessment proceedings merely on the basis of information gathered from Sales Tax Department. 5.1 The ld. AR further submitted that the assessment proceedings are also liable to be set aside on the ground that the mandatory peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... located at the given address. The assessee had entered into transactions with the declared Hawala dealers, no goods were received against the alleged purchases by the assessee, merely book entries were provided by the Hawala operators against marginal payment of commission. The ld. DR prayed for addition of entire amount as bogus purchases. To support her submissions the ld. DR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. paramount Communication (P.) Ltd., 392 ITR 444 (Delhi); ii. Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer, 393 ITR 612 (Gujarat); iii. Pushpak Bullion (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 85 taxmann.com 84 (Gujarat); iv. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, 236 ITR 34 (SC). 6.1 The ld. DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has followed the course of action as indicated in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer reported as 259 ITR 19 (SC). The assessee was provided opportunity to file objections against the reasons for reopening. The objections filed by the assessee were duly considered and were disposed of by passing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 16-03-2015 A perusal of chronology of events show that after disposing the objections on 05-03-2015, the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order within a short span of 11 days on 16-03-2015. 9. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Anr. (supra) has held that the Assessing Officer should provide four weeks time to the assessee after rejection of objections before passing of the assessment order. 10. In the present case, we observe that the Assessing Officer has violated the directions of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Anr. (supra) in not allowing four weeks time to the assessee before passing the assessment order after rejecting the objections. The time line set out by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in allowing four weeks time to the assessee is binding on the Assessing Officer. The violation of the directions of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court would make the assessment order bad in law. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
