9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 143 - HC - Income TaxValidity of reopening order passed without dealing with assessee s submission - escapement of income is on the basis of audit objections raised - HELD THAT - Petitioner explained that as regards the first issue being the value in lieu of additional FSI plus Fungible FSI the same was subject matter of assessment proceedings and therefore it was a clear case of change of opinion. As regards the second part Petitioner explained that the same issue under the original development agreement was considered by the ITAT for AY 2011-2012 and the ITAT has held that the amount was not taxable in the hands of Petitioner. In the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act the AO has not dealt with any of these submissions of Petitioner. Therefore in our view such an order which does not deal with the submissions of Petitioner cannot be sustained. In the result impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The consequential notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside.The matter is remanded to the AO for de-novo consideration. Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the reassessment of the Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on audit objections raised regarding a supplemental agreement dated 23rd August 2014. Details of the judgment: 1. The Petitioner, a Middle Income Group Co-operative Housing Society, entered into a development agreement with a Developer in 2010, which was later supplemented in 2014 to avail additional benefits under the Development Rules. 2. The Revenue reopened the assessment for the AY 2011-2012, assessing a higher income than the returned income. The ITAT later ruled in favor of the Petitioner, stating that the members had already paid tax on compensations, hence avoiding double taxation. 3. For the AY 2016-2017, the Petitioner received a notice under Section 148A(b) based on audit objections related to the supplemental agreement. 4. The audit objections raised concerned the additional benefits received by the Society from the Developer, leading to an alleged escapement of income. 5. The Petitioner responded to the notice, citing that the issues raised were already addressed in previous assessments and rulings by the ITAT. 6. The AO's order under Section 148A(d) did not consider the Petitioner's submissions, leading the Court to quash the order and remand the matter for reconsideration. 7. The Court ordered the AO to pass a reasoned order addressing all submissions of the Petitioner and providing a personal hearing before making any decision. 8. The impugned order and consequential notice were quashed, and the matter was remanded for de-novo consideration by the AO. 9. The Petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, keeping all rights and contentions of parties open.
|
