TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the reopening of the assessment should be disposed of by the Assessing Officer by a speaking order is a mandatory requirement that cannot be dispensed with. Admittedly this mandatory requirement has not been complied with in the instant case. On this ground alone the re- assessment proceeding is vitiated. Relying on the decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala v. N.C. Cables Ltd [ 2017 (1) TMI 1036 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , Mr. Ray submitted that there was a failure by the competent authority in terms of Section 151 of the IT Act to authorize the reopening of the assessment. Factually, the above position has not been able to be disputed by Mr. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the Department. Indeed the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. While directing issuance of notice in the present writ petition on 20th October, 2014, an interim order was passed directing that the proceedings against the Petitioner may continue, but no final order shall be passed pursuant to the impugned order. 4. The background facts are that the Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Pratik Tours and Travels which is in the business of selling of AIR Tickets and Tour Packages. The Petitioner filed his return of income for the AY 2007-08 on 29th October 2007. More than five years thereafter, the Petitioner received the impugned notice dated 21st May, 2013, in response to which by letter dated 15th July, 2013, the Petitioner assessee requested the ITO to inform him of the reasons for the reopening ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petitioner prior to issuing the SCN to reopen the assessment would vitiate the SCN, particularly since it is sought to be reopened more than four years after the return was filed. 11. In response thereto, Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department submitted that the SCN dated 2nd July, 2014 issued to the Petitioner by the ITO should be construed as the disposal of the Petitioner's objection. 12. The Court is unable to agree with the above submission on behalf of the Department. A perusal of the SCN dated 2nd July, 2014 reveals that there is no mention of the Petitioner's detailed objections given in writing on 8th October, 2013. In fact, even the counter affidavit filed by the Department is silen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond four years. However, the above approval in the instant case was issued by the Joint Commissioner and therefore, it was not a valid approval under Section 151 of the IT Act. 14. For both the above reasons, the impugned notice dated 21st May, 2013 issued to the Petitioner cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside. All consequential proceedings are also hereby set aside. 15. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs. 16. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
