Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (7) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o filed his original return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 31.03.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 20,12,920/-. Initially assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 28.02.2013 determining the total income at Rs. 20,12,920/-. Thereafter, AO on the basis of the information as per Form-26AS noted that assessee had received Rs. 2,17,64,344/- on 10.06.2009 from the Land Acquisition Office. He accordingly issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 13.06.2013 after recording the reasons and served on the assessee. In response to the aforesaid notice assessee inter alia vide letter dated 30.12.2014 submitted that the original return filed for the A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 be considered to be the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 and also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e mandatory conditions as envisaged u/s 147 to 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in assuming jurisdiction and passing the impugned reassessment order u/s 147/143(3) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 90,59,320/- on account of interest received on enhanced compensation u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 90,59 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d on its receipt, assessee filed objection on 27.02.2015 objecting to the initiation of reopening. He submitted that the AO without passing speaking order on the objections filed, completed the reassessment on 28.03.2015. Learned AR submitted that the AO did not follow the procedures laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. vs. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19. He submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. (supra), the Assessing Officer is required to dispose of the objections placed to the reopening of the assessment with a speaking order and failure to apply with the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court would render the assessment order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0) 120 taxmann.com 400 (Punjab & Haryana High Court). He further submitted that against the aforesaid order passed by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, assessee had filed SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was dismissed and the same is reported in (2020) 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Before us, Learned AR is challenging the reassessment proceedings. It is an undisputed position that the assessee had objected to the reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2010-11 vide letter dated 27.02.2015. It is also an undisputed fact that no separate speaking order disposing of the objections raised by the assessee has been passed by the AO and he has proceeded to pass the assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g of reasons and furnishing of the same has to be strictly complied with as it is a jurisdictional issue and in the absence of reasons being furnished when sought for would make an order passed on reassessment bad in law. We also find that the Hon'ble Mad High Court in the case of Jayanthi Natarajan (supra) has held that when the procedure required to be followed has not been adhered to, the entire reassessment proceedings were vitiated. We, therefore, relying on the aforesaid decision in the case of Jayanthi Natarajan (supra) and Trend Electronics (supra) hold that since the procedure required to be followed has not been followed the entire assessment proceedings are vitiated and therefore we hold the assessment order passed by the AO to b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates