TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the dictum of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer [ 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] On a perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the above objection was in fact not considered by the PCIT. The Court is of the view that the impugned order of the PCIT is unsustainable in law in so far as it is failed to consider the principal objection of the Petitioner to the opening of the assessment. Therefore, the flaw vitiates the order of reassessment equally vitiates the impugned order of the PCIT as well. In this connection, references were being made to the decision of this Court in Viresh Hemani v. Income Tax Officer [ 2021 (4) TMI 1175 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] and the recent decision M/s. Tuff Tub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,29,880/-. The return was picked up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act by an assessment order dated 31st December, 2010 with the AO determining the assessable income as Rs.2,88,014.90. 4. Notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was issued to the Petitioner seeking to reopen the above assessment under Section 147 of the IT Act. By a letter dated 23rd August 2012, the AO communicated the following reasons for reopening the assessment: From the details, it is revealed that assessee has provided temporary advance of Rs.7.96 Cr. in respect of nine concerns namely Kalinga Hatchery, Jyoti Motors, Passary Minerals, Carnex Sales Agencies P. Ltd., Altrade Expo Pvt. Ltd., RKD Construction Pvt. Ltd., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The Petitioner responded to this notice on 14th November, 2012 reiterating that he had sufficient funds to make such advances and there was no nexus between the borrowed funds and such advances. Consequently, no part of the interest paid by the Assessee to banks/financial institutions was disallowable. 7. The grievance of the Petitioner is that without considering the above objection, a reassessment order was passed by the AO on 21st November, 2012, which the Assessee challenges before the PCIT under Section 264 of the IT Act. 8. In the impugned order, the PCIT has failed to deal with one of the principal grounds of challenge to the assessment order viz., that without considering the Petitioner's objection to the reopening of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
