9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 173 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Held that - Since in the instant case it is an admitted fact that the A.O has not disposed of the objections raised by the assessee to such reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act by passing a speaking order, therefore, such reassessment order is liable to be quashed. So far as the argument of the ld. DR that the matter should be restored to the file of the A.O with the direction to dispose of the objections raised by passing a speaking order, in the case of Smt Kamlesh Sharma 2006 (12) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT and that the assessment order need not be quashed is concerned, we do not find any merit in the same since the later decision of the Hon ble High Court will prevail over the previous decision. Appeal filed by the assessee is according allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Non-disposal of objections raised by the assessee against the issuance of notice under Section 148. 3. Addition of ?5,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act as income from undisclosed sources. 4. Charging of interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Initiation of Proceedings under Section 147 and Issuance of Notice under Section 148: The assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 and the issuance of notice under Section 148 as arbitrary, unjust, and illegal. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer (A.O) did not independently conclude that there was reason to believe that the income had escaped assessment but relied solely on the information received from the Additional DIT (Investigation), Ghaziabad. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT Vs. G & G Pharma, which held that the A.O must apply his mind to the materials and conclude that there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The Tribunal found that the A.O did not apply his mind independently and proceeded based on the letter from the Additional DIT (Investigation). 2. Non-Disposal of Objections Raised by the Assessee Against the Issuance of Notice under Section 148: The assessee raised specific objections against the issuance of notice under Section 148, which the A.O failed to dispose of by passing a speaking order. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd & Anr, which mandated that the A.O must dispose of the objections by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. The Tribunal also referred to the decision in Principal CIT Vs. Tupperware India P. Ltd, which held that the failure to dispose of objections by a speaking order renders the reassessment order void and illegal. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order due to the A.O's failure to dispose of the objections raised by the assessee. 3. Addition of ?5,00,000 Under Section 68 as Income from Undisclosed Sources: The A.O added ?5,00,000 to the assessee's income under Section 68, treating the gift received as bogus and from undisclosed sources. The assessee argued that the gift was genuine, supported by relevant documents such as the gift deed, affidavit, and bank statements. The assessee also submitted that the donor had passed away, making it impossible to produce him for verification. The Tribunal, however, did not adjudicate this issue on merits as the reassessment order was quashed on the preliminary legal issue of non-disposal of objections. 4. Charging of Interest under Sections 234A and 234B: The assessee challenged the charging of interest under Sections 234A and 234B as arbitrary, unjust, and illegal. However, since the reassessment order was quashed on the preliminary legal issue, the Tribunal did not adjudicate this issue. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, quashing the reassessment order on the grounds that the A.O failed to dispose of the objections raised by the assessee against the issuance of notice under Section 148 by passing a speaking order. The Tribunal did not adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee, including the addition under Section 68 and the charging of interest under Sections 234A and 234B, as they became academic in nature following the quashing of the reassessment order.
|
