TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] the assessment / re-assessment framed by the AO in lieu of notice under section 147/ 148 of the Act is quashed. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd [ 2016 (10) TMI 1112 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . Also see TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD. [ 2015 (8) TMI 517 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Thus re-assessment is quashed and appeal of assessee is allowed on this jurisdictional issue. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1909/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2018 - SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAMIT KOCHAR, AM For the Appellant : Bhadresh Doshi, AR For the Respondent : D.G. Pansari, DR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es bills. The data of the said searches, carried out by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department along with the statements etc. of such parties indulged in issuance of bogus bills i.e. without delivery of actual goods, has been communicated to Director General of Income tax (Inv.) Mumbai. The DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai vide his letter No Corr. Field/ DGIT(Inv.)/2013-14 dated 26.12.2013 has communicated the details of fictitious purchase. The name of the assessee found in this list, is beneficiary of such accommodation bills. The assessee has availed accommodation/ fictitious bills from the below names parties to the extent of amount mentioned against their names. Sr. No. Name of the party who have issued bogus b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objection raised vide letter No.SC-148/BS/A.Y.09-10/02 dated 30.04.2014 for reopening of the objections running into 7 pages, which were not dealt with by the AO while completing the assessment. The learned Counsel for the assessee took us through the re-assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act and stated that there are no iota of comments on the objections raised to the reasons recorded for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee also drew our attention to the letter written to the ACIT dated 20.11.2014, whereby the first objection for non-adjudication of objections raised as raised during the course of assessment as well is as under: - 1. Reason provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessment Order is without jurisdiction as the law laid down by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (supra) has not been followed, then there is no reason to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer to pass a further/fresh order. If this is permitted, it would give a licence to the Assessing Officer to pass orders on reopening notice, without jurisdiction (without compliance of the law in accordance with the procedure), yet the only consequence, would be that in appeal, it would be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after following the due procedure. This would lead to unnecessary harassment of the Assessee by reviving stale/ old matters. 9 In fact, to ensure that reopening notices are disposed of, expeditious ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent Revenue. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee also drew our attention to the order of Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in the case of DCIT vs. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development in ITA No. 4694/Mum/2014 for AY 2004-05 vide order dated 28.10.2016. In view of the above, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that once the objections are not disposed off, re-assessment framed is not valid. 7. On the other hand, the learned Sr. Departmental Representative stated that Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2018) 93 taxmann.com 371 (Madras), has considered the issue and held that for non-compliance of procedure indicated by the Supreme Court would not make the order void or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 147/ 148 of the Act is quashed. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Even Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tupperware India (P.) Ltd. (2016) 65 taxmann.com 17 (Delhi) held as under:- 5. Apparently, the Assessee did raise an objection to the order of the AO reopening the assessment. In the order dated 28th January 2011 allowing the Assessee's appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT (A)'] noted that the Assessee had indeed filed objections to the reopening of the assessment by its letter dated 9th August 2006. In the remand report dated 20th December 2010, the AO quoted a paragraph from the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
