9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiated by the 2nd Respondent and continued by the 1st Respondent under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act are barred by limitation and opposed to the said provisions and therefore without jurisdiction; (ii) quashing the notice bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/148/2017-18/1009607021(1) dated 31.03.2018 (Annexure - D) issued by the 2nd Respondent under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12; (iii) quashing the re-assessment order dated 30.12.2018 (Annexure-K) passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12; (iv) quashing the demand notice dated 30.12.2018 (Annexure-L) issued by the 1st Respondent under Section 156 of the Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is to be disposed off on the sole ground that the procedure prescribed in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs. Income-Tax Officer - (2002) 125 Taxmann 963 (SC), which requires that the reasons for issuing notice once communicated and objections received, if the same are not adjudicated upon before reassessment order is passed, then the proceedings of reassessment requires to be set aside. He further submits that admittedly, in the present case, after the reasons for reopening has been communicated in terms of Annexure-F and reply was made out by the petitioner in terms of Annexure-J, without disposal of the same, question of passing reassessment order under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in GKN Driveshafts (supra) and relies on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Home Finders Housing Limited vs. Income Tax Officer - (2018) 93 taxmann.com 371 (Madras). 7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 919/2019 disposed off on 24.01.2023, wherein the Division Bench has again reiterated the conclusion in Deepak Extrusions (Supra) while observing that the procedure in GKN Driveshafts (supra) is a procedure that has been held to be mandatory and accordingly, the Division Bench has rejected the contention raised by the Revenue that the judgment in Home Finders (supra) ought to have been followed. 8. Heard both sides. 9. It is not in dispute tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply to such reasons having been furnished by the petitioner, the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose off the same by passing a speaking order before proceeding to pass an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. In light of the limitation expiring on 31.12.2018, the practical difficulties of the Assessing Officer could be of no reason to condone the non-adherence to the procedure in GKN Driveshafts (supra). The effect of non-following such procedure has been dealt with by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Deepak Extrusions, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has rightly held that the mandatory procedure of disposal of objections by the Assessing Officer not having been followed, the order of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
