TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jection raised by assessee against re-opening - One of the other issue brought to our notice is regarding violation of the order of the Hon ble High Court s binding direction (supra) to give assessee at least four (4) weeks time, after AO disposes of the objection raised by assesse against re-opening of assessment. In this case, we note that AO has disposed/rejected the objection raised by assessee by order dated 05.03.2015 (refer page 35 PB) and passed the re-assessment order dated 20.03.2015, which clearly shows that AO did not give time of four (4) weeks for assessee to avail the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is noted that Assessee received said with letter rejecting the objection on 10.03.2015 and the AO passed the re-assessment order on 20.03.2015 which is against the binding direction of Hon ble High Court in Asian Paints [ 2007 (1) TMI 159 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . Therefore on this score alone, we cancel the order of re-assessment passed by AO. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.6635/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2022 - Shri Aby T. Varkey, JM And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, AM For the Assessee : Shri Ashok Bansal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of the reasons recorded given along with letter (refer page 18-20 of the PB) the figure is Rs.2,87,50,000/-. These two figures shown in different reasons recorded according to Ld AR shows non-application of mind and thus the AO did not had the requisite jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for AY. 2007-08. Moreover, according to the Ld. AR adverse information may trigger reason to suspect , (when he received information from DGIT (Inv.) against the assessee) and not reason to believe, which is the requirement of law to re-open, which was absent in this case. According to him, when the AO had adverse information [ reason to suspect ], then the AO had to make reasonable inquiry and collect materials which would make him believe that there is infact any escapement of income, which exercise is totally absent in this case. According to the Ld. AR, based on the borrowed satisfaction of the DGIT(Inv.), the AO has reopened the assessment which he could not have done, so the AO could not have validily re-opened the assessment. 3. Further, according to the Ld. AR, the AO (successor of the AO who recorded the reasons for re-opening) has amended the reasons for reopening vide his n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent all the petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2. In all the above petitions, it is a case regarding reopening of the assessment order under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. In all the above cases, the petitioners have filed their respective objections on January 15, 2007, with regard to reopening of the assessment. 3. The learned senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in some of the cases as soon as the objections were rejected by the concerned Income-tax Officer, even the assessment order has been passed within a very short time whereby the assessee is left without any remedy to challenge such an order of rejection. 4. Hence we make it clear that if the Assessing Officer does not accept the objections so filed, he shall not proceed further in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of service of the said order on objections, on the assessee. 5. Accordingly, rule is made absolute. 6. We also direct that the Income-tax Officer concerned shall follow the above procedure strictly in all such cases of reopening of assessment. All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 7. Drawing our attention to the aforesaid chart, the Ld. AR submitted that the AO did not wait for four (4) weeks before he passed the order on 20.03.2015 whereas he could have awaited at least till 31st March, 2015. According to the Ld. AR, the objection [against re-opening] was disposed of by the AO vide order dated 05.03.2015 by over-ruling the objections raised the assessee; and the re-assessment order was passed on 20.03.2015 which is against the binding decision/direction of the Hon ble High Court dated 29.01.2007 (supra); and he pointed out that in number of cases when AO has not followed the aforesaid order in Asian Paints (supra), the AO s re-assessment order has been quashed. And therefore the Ld. AR pleads that the action of AO not to have followed the binding direction of Hon ble High Court in Asian Paints itself vitiates the re-assessment order passed within two (2) weeks after disposing of the objection. And thus effectively did not allow the assessee to pursue the extra-ordinary remedy of approaching the Hon ble High Court for issuance of writ. So he prays that AO s action of not providing four ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
