9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17,500/- on account of commission paid. 2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties through video conferencing and perused the material on record. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee company filed return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 31,74,650/-. Subsequently, it was revised to the same income which was processed under section 143(1). The A.O. issued notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act on 29.03.2017. The assessee in response thereto filed letter dated 20.04.2017 [PB-26] submitting therein that the return filed under section 139 of the I.T. Act may be considered as return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee requested for suppl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmediately on the same day on 21.11.2017 filed objections against the initiation of re-assessment proceedings, copy of which is filed at Page Nos.28 to 50 of the PB. He has submitted that A.O. has disposed of the objections of the assessee vide Order Dated 05.12.2017 PB-51 and 52. He has submitted that A.O. immediately after disposing of the objections of the assessee on 05.12.2017 passed the impugned assessment order under section 147 read with section 143(3) on 28.12.2017. Therefore, A.O. has not given four weeks time to the assessee to seek legal remedy after rejection of the objections and within 23 days passed the assessment order. Therefore, reopening of the assessment is clearly bad in Law and is nullity and liable to be quashed. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in law and on facts in not quashing the jurisdiction of the AO u/s 147 in view of the facts that the AO has not followed the due process of law as held by the Apex Court in GKN Drive Shaft (Supra) before framing the reassessment 4. The CIT(A) has further erred in not appreciating that AO has proceeded to assess that income which does not form part of reasons recorded particularly when the income for which the AO has assumed jurisdiction has been accepted by the AO. 5. The CIT(A) has further erred by partly allowing the addition made by Ld. Income Tax Office, under section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from Rs. 14,06 060/- to Rs. 5,09,193/-, is legally and factually incorrect and has been made by recording factually incorrect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. In view of the fact that the AO has disposed of the objections of the assessee on 22.11.11 and passed the assessment order on 19.12.2011, it is clear that no such time was granted to the assessee. " 6. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Bharat Jayantilal Patel [supra] reads as under: "21. For the first contention of Mr.Pardiwalla to be considered, it is material to note that on 11th September, 2014 the petitioner addressed a detailed communication setting out his objections to the recorded reasons. These objections which are elaborate run into about 9 pages. Thereafter, the petitioner pointed out on 8th December, 2014 that he was required to attend the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ints (supra) and to the effect that if the assessing officer does not accept the objections to the reopening of the assessment or the reasons recorded, he shall not proceed further in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt or service of the said order on the assessee. Since the order dated 5th March, 2015 is stated to be rejecting the objections, then, the assessee prayed that for a period of four weeks from that order, no steps should be taken. 23. However, as has been rightly contended by Mr. Pardiwalla, ignoring this mandate in the decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been further reiterated in M/s.Aroni Commercials Ltd. (supra), the impugned assessment order has been passed, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 [PB-26]. This fact is also mentioned by the A.O. in the assessment order. The A.O. has also mentioned in the assessment order that assessee thereafter requested for supply of the reasons recorded for re-assessment proceedings which were provided to the assessee on 21.11.2017. The assessee has filed copy of the letter Dated 25.04.2017 which was filed to the A.O. asking for copies of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. It bears the stamp of the Revenue Department also. Thus, it is clear that assessee immediately asked for copy of the reasons for reopening of the assessment on 25.04.2017 after filing earlier letter Dated 20.04.2017. Thus, there is no delay on the part of the assessee aski ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
