9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 909 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - consequential demand notice as well as the directions issued under Section 144A - Held that - It is not in dispute that the petitioner has moved before the respondent No.2 under Section 144A of the Act seeking directions to respondent No.1 during the pendency of the reassessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. It is hardly required to be stated that the respondent No.1 is bound by the directions issued by the respondent No.2 in terms of the order passed under Section 144A of the Act. That being the fact situation, the order impugned is passed by respondent No.1. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no decision has been taken by the respondent No.1 on the objections relating to the jurisdiction prior to passing of the order impugned. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced for having invited an order under Section 144A of the Act by respondent No.2. This Court is of the considered view that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable for the reason that no order under Section 144A of the Act was considered in the said cases. Writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to file an appeal before an appropriate authority in accordance with law.
Issues:
Assessment Order under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2011-12, Directions issued under Section 144A of the Act, Failure to dispose of objections prior to passing re-assessment order. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Assessment Order dated 26.12.2018 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The petitioner also contested the consequential demand notice dated 26.12.2018 and the directions issued under Section 144A of the Act by respondent No.2. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of objections before passing the re-assessment order, citing the mandatory requirement based on legal precedents. The respondent No.2 had issued directions under Section 144A of the Act during the reassessment proceedings. The High Court noted that the Assessing Officer is bound by the directions issued by respondent No.2 under Section 144A. The Court found that the judgments cited by the petitioner were distinguishable as they did not involve an order under Section 144A of the Act. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had invoked Section 144A by seeking directions from respondent No.2 during the reassessment proceedings. The Court held that the petitioner's argument regarding the failure to decide on objections prior to passing the impugned order was not tenable due to the involvement of Section 144A. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty for the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate authority within two weeks from the receipt of the order. The Court directed that such an appeal, if filed within the specified period, would be considered on merits without objections to the limitation period, subject to the petitioner following the necessary procedures. The Court left all rights and contentions of the parties open for further proceedings.
|
