9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 102 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Assessing Officer framed the impugned order within 16 days of disposing of the objections of the assessee - Held that - The answer is given by the coordinate bench in the case of Metaplast Engineering P. Ltd 2018 (4) TMI 1558 - ITAT DELHI wherein the co-ordinate bench has considered the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel 2015 (5) TMI 950 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein held learned AO should have allowed four weeks time to the assessee to seek their legal remedies after rejection of the objections of the assessee. The assessment order dated 30.12.2016 framed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. - decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
1. Validity of order passed by CIT(A) 2. Jurisdiction of AO under section 147 3. Compliance with legal procedures by AO 4. Timing of assessment order after disposing of objections Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of order passed by CIT(A) The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-19, New Delhi dated 31.07.2017 for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee raised various grounds challenging the legality and factual correctness of the CIT(A)'s order. The grounds included objections to the affirming of AO's jurisdiction under section 147, failure to quash jurisdiction under section 147, and incorrect additions made by the Income Tax Office. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in law and fact, leading to the appeal against the order. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of AO under section 147 The case involved the reopening of the assessee's assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO reopened the assessment in 2016, and objections were filed by the assessee challenging the jurisdiction of the AO. The key contention was whether the AO had followed the due process of law before framing the reassessment. The assessee argued that the AO assessed income that was already accepted, questioning the validity of the AO's jurisdiction under section 147. Issue 3: Compliance with legal procedures by AO A critical aspect of the case was whether the AO complied with legal procedures while conducting the reassessment. The assessee raised objections to the procedural aspects followed by the AO, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in GKN Drive Shaft case. The AO's failure to grant sufficient time to the assessee to seek legal remedies after rejecting objections was highlighted, drawing parallels with relevant judicial precedents emphasizing the importance of due process in such matters. Issue 4: Timing of assessment order after disposing of objections The core dispute revolved around the timing of the assessment order in relation to the disposal of the assessee's objections. The assessee argued that the AO framed the assessment order within a short period after disposing of the objections, which raised concerns about the adequacy of time provided to the assessee to seek legal remedies. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the AO should have allowed a reasonable period for the assessee to pursue legal remedies after objection rejection, and failing to do so rendered the assessment order bad in law. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal held that the assessment order framed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act was invalid and should be quashed. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, emphasizing the significance of adhering to legal procedures and granting adequate time for parties to address objections in such cases.
|
