9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as survey was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 18.2.2009. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") at the assessed income of Rs. 1,10,49,970/-. AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 11.3.2016, after recording the reasons u/s. 147 of the Act which the AO has reproduced in para no. 2 at page no. 1 & 2 of the assessment order. In response to the same, the assessee filed reply dated 21.3.2016 and requested that the return originally filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act may be treated as returned filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act for the AY 2009-10. The assessee was also requested for copy of reasons recorded for issue o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- vide order dated 28.12.2016. Aggrieved with the same, assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide its order dated 19.11.2019 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Now the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee draw our attention towards various grounds raised by the assessee alognwith paper book as well as paper book compilation of case laws supporting the claim of the assessee and argued that the AO has completed the assessment in violation of principle of natural justice. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has also sustained the order of the AO without appreciating that the rubber s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue authorities has passed the impugned order in violation of principle of natural justice as no back material is offered for cross examination of the assessee during the assessment proceedings made in this regard which is sufficient to strike down. In support of his contention, he filed various case laws in the shape of paper book containing pages 1-225 in which he has attached various orders of the ITAT, Delhi Benches and judgements of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and various other Hon'ble High Courts. Finally he requested that the appeal filed by the assessee may be accepted and the addition in dispute may be deleted. 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also reproduced in the assessment order vide para no. 4. We have also perused the assessment order dated 28.12.2016 passed u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act in which finally the AO had made the addition of Rs. 50 lacs as mentioned in para no. 7 at page no. 22 of the assessment order. We have also gone through the objections dated 27.12.2016 filed by the assessee before the AO in which the assessee has specifically objected the initiation of proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act which is without jurisdiction, time barred and bad in law. We have also perused the assessment order and we find that the AO has disposed off the objections in the assessment order dated 28.11.2016 without passing a separate order which is the contrary to l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment have admittedly not been supplied to the assessee. No statement recorded during the course of search operation in the case of Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal have been confronted to the assessee and no person was produced for cross-examination on behalf of the assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon several Judgments above in support of this contention. The crux of the said Judgments had been that in case incorrect, wrong and non-existing reasons are recorded by the A.O. for reopening of the assessment and that A.O. failed to verify the information received from Investigation Wing, the reopening of the assessment would be unjustified and is liable to be quashed. In the present case, the facts noted above clearly show that A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee for making any addition. It may also be noted here that assessees raised the objections against the reopening of the assessment on 27/28/29/30.11.2018, but, the objections of the assessee have not been disposed of by the A.O. prior to passing of the reassessment orders. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) clearly show that objections of the assessee have been dealt by the A.O. in the assessment order by passing the composite order. Thus, it is clear that objections of all the Assessees were not disposed of prior to passing of the reassessment order. Thus, it is clearly in violation of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. GKN Drive Shafts [SC], Haryana Acleric [Delhi-HC], Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd., [BombayHC] relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
