9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (3) TMI 83 - HC - Income TaxObjection to notice - Question of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment speaking order revenue submit that the question of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment can be raised before the appellate authority, since against the assessment order an appeal can be preferred I am unable to appreciate the manner in which the Assessing Officer proceeded with the matter. What he actually wanted to mean by his decision, is not clear. - Held that, on receipt of the objections from the petitioner-company, AO was under the obligation to make a speaking order. - I do not think in such a case the assessee should be sent to the appellate authority. The petitioner-company was entitled to get the speaking order. Such a valuable right of the petitioner-company could not be taken away by the Assessing Officer at the stroke of a pen. it is a fit case where the writ petition should be disposed of at the admission stage itself.
Issues:
1. Validity of decision and assessment order by Assessing Officer without a speaking order. 2. Obligation of Assessing Officer to make a speaking order after considering objections. 3. Jurisdiction of appellate authority to remit the matter to Assessing Officer for determining jurisdiction. 4. Compliance with apex court decision regarding speaking order. 5. Disposal of writ petition at the admission stage. Issue 1: Validity of decision and assessment order by Assessing Officer without a speaking order The petitioner-company challenged the decision of the Assessing Officer dated February 16, 2006, and the subsequent assessment order dated February 24, 2006, as both lacked a speaking order despite objections raised. The Assessing Officer merely recorded that objections were considered without providing any detailed reasoning or analysis. The petitioner argued that the failure to issue a speaking order rendered both decisions invalid. Issue 2: Obligation of Assessing Officer to make a speaking order after considering objections The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer was obligated to issue a speaking order after considering the objections raised by the company, as per the apex court decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO. The Assessing Officer's failure to provide a detailed explanation or justification for dismissing the objections was deemed a violation of this obligation. Issue 3: Jurisdiction of appellate authority to remit the matter to Assessing Officer for determining jurisdiction The Revenue's counsel argued that the question of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment could be raised before the appellate authority, as an appeal could be preferred against the assessment order. However, the petitioner's counsel highlighted that the existing law did not empower the appellate authority to remit the matter to the Assessing Officer for determining jurisdiction, citing section 251(1)(a). Issue 4: Compliance with apex court decision regarding speaking order The court emphasized the importance of complying with the apex court decision requiring the Assessing Officer to issue a speaking order after considering objections. The failure to provide a speaking order, especially when objections related to jurisdiction were raised, was deemed a violation of this legal principle. Issue 5: Disposal of writ petition at the admission stage The court decided to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself, considering it a fit case for such disposition. The decision was based on the admitted facts, primarily focusing on the legality and propriety of the Assessing Officer's actions rather than delving into the merits of the assessment order itself. The court set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to issue a speaking order after considering the objections raised by the petitioner. In conclusion, the court held that the assessment order and the decision of the Assessing Officer were liable to be set aside due to the failure to provide a speaking order. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal obligations and directed the Assessing Officer to proceed in accordance with the law after issuing a speaking order.
|
