9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 which is beyond jurisdiction, void-ab-initio Since we have already quashed the reassessment order, there is no need to adjudicate the other grounds on merits being academic o and needs to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in ignoring assessee's contention regarding non disposal of objections by the AO which were raised by assessee during the assessment year against the reopening of case which is highly arbitrary, unjustified and uncalled for. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts of the case in upholding the addition u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs. 18,00,000/- which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law." 3. Brief facts of the case are as under :- " In this case, assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein at para 5.2, I have upheld the action of the AO. The same will also hold good here. 6. Ground no: 3: Here the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- as deemed dividend. 6.1 Identical ground has been adjudicated in the case of assessee's brother, Shri Aman Sharma in Appeal no:49/CIT(A)(C)/GGN/2013- 14 dated 27.10.2014 wherein at para 6.2, I have upheld the action of the AO. The same will also hold good here." 5. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of ld. CIT (A) in the case of assessee's brother, Aman Sharma, which was identical, has been set aside by the ITAT and ITAT has all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions by a comprehensive order, but in this case the AO has not done this, which is against the mandate of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishwanath Engineers vs. ACIT (2013) 352 ITR 549 wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts vs ITO reported in 259 ITR 19. We find that the Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19/ [2002] 125 has observed as under:- "19. Apart from the aforesaid fact, in case of GKN Drioeshafts (India) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court has clearly laid down the law that the Assessing Officer is bound to disclose the reason of reassessment within reasonable time and on receipt of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which it was held that non-communication of reasons is not fatal. However, Ld. CIT(A) has been misled by the said decision since the said judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case. The assessee has not contested the non-communication of reasons by the AO but has challenged the action of AO in not disposing off objections of the assessee which is mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. 5.4 Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as explained above and respectfully following the precedent, as aforesaid, we are of the considered view that AO is under a mandate to dispose of such objections before proceeding with the assessment by passing a speaking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
