2016 (3) TMI 179 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 147 - Time limit for completion of assessments and reassessments u/s 153 - Held that - In the present facts, we find that the draft Assessment order was passed on 30th March, 2015 without having disposed of the Petitioner s objections to the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice. The reasons were supplied to the Petitioner only on 19th March, 2015 and the Petitioner had filed the objections to the same on 25th March, 2015. This passing of the draft Assessment order without having disposed of the objections is in defiance of the Supreme Court s decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court ). Thus, the draft Assessment order dated 30th March, 2015 is not sustainable being without jurisdiction. This for the reason that it has been passed without disposing of the objections filed by the Petitioner to the reasons recorded in support of their impugned notice. Accordingly, we set aside the draft Assessment order dated 30th March, 2015. We are not dealing the validity of the reasons in support of the impugned notice in the present facts as the time limit to pass the Assessment order as provided under 4th Proviso to sub-section(2) of Section 153 of the Act has already expired when the petition was filed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening Assessment Year 2007-2008 and draft Assessment order dated 30th March, 2015.

Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment: The petitioner filed a return for Assessment Year 2007-2008, which was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. However, a notice was issued on 6th February, 2013, seeking to reopen the assessment. The petitioner requested reasons for the notice, which were provided only on 19th March, 2015, after repeated communications. The petitioner filed objections on 25th March, 2015, but the Assessing Officer passed a draft Assessment order on 30th March, 2015, without addressing the objections. The Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v/s Income Tax Officer emphasized the need for the Assessing Officer to provide reasons and address objections before proceeding with the assessment.

2. Transfer Pricing Cases: The case involved transfer pricing issues, which have a specific period of limitation for assessment proceedings after a reopening notice is served. The law requires the Assessing Officer to provide reasons upon request and dispose of objections before finalizing the assessment. In this case, the delay in providing reasons and passing the draft Assessment order without addressing objections raised concerns about procedural compliance and fairness in the assessment process.

3. Jurisdictional Concerns: The court noted that passing the draft Assessment order without addressing the petitioner's objections was a violation of jurisdictional requirements. The Assessing Officer's delay in providing reasons and the subsequent withdrawal of the order by the Principal Commissioner raised questions about the validity and procedural integrity of the assessment process. The court set aside the draft Assessment order dated 30th March, 2015, due to the lack of jurisdiction in passing it without addressing objections.

4. Remedial Action: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax intervened by setting aside the draft Assessment order and restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for proper consideration of the objections. However, the subsequent withdrawal of the order created uncertainty about the assessment process's fairness and adherence to legal requirements. The court emphasized the importance of following due process and ensuring that taxpayers are not unfairly burdened due to procedural lapses.

5. Final Decision: The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the draft Assessment order dated 30th March, 2015, due to procedural deficiencies. The court did not delve into the validity of the reasons for the reopening notice, as the time limit for passing the assessment order had already lapsed. The judgment made the rule absolute in favor of the petitioner, with no order as to costs, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in tax assessments.