2017 (2) TMI 648 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - objections by the petitioner against the reopening rejected - Held that - We set aside the reassessment order which was passed without disposing of the objections raised by the assessee. See Banaskantha District Oilseeds Growers Co-Op. Union Ltd. Versus ACIT 2015 (8) TMI 269 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT Impugned assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the demand notice dated 30.12.2016 is also quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer at the stage of submitting the objections by the petitioner against the reopening of the assessment for AY 200910. The Assessing Officer now to deal with and dispose of the objections raised by the petitioner on 24.11.2016 and pass a speaking order, before proceeding with the reassessment in respect of the assessment year for which such notice has been issued and communicate the outcome of the same and thereafter after giving some reasonable time to the petitioner to challenge the decision dispose of the objections (in case the Assessing Officer overrules the objections raised by the petitioner by a speaking order).

Issues:
1. Validity of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Legality of the reassessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act.
3. Disposal of objections raised by the assessee against reopening of assessment.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an assessee, filed a petition under Article 226 seeking to quash the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the reassessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act for AY 2009-10. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer did not provide reasons for reopening the assessment promptly and failed to dispose of objections raised by the petitioner before passing the reassessment order.

2. The petitioner received the notice under Section 148 after a significant delay of over 4 years from the original assessment. The Assessing Officer did not address the objections raised by the petitioner against the reopening of the assessment before finalizing the reassessment order. The petitioner argued that as per legal precedents, including the decision in G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO, the Assessing Officer is obligated to dispose of objections before proceeding with the reassessment.

3. The petitioner's objections against the reopening of the assessment were not dealt with by the Assessing Officer before passing the reassessment order. The counsel for the Revenue acknowledged this lapse and requested the court to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for proper consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner. The court referred to various legal precedents, including the G.K.N. Driveshafts case and subsequent decisions, emphasizing the importance of addressing objections before finalizing reassessment.

4. The court held that the Assessing Officer's failure to dispose of the objections raised by the petitioner against the reopening of the assessment rendered the reassessment order illegal and arbitrary. The court quashed the reassessment order and the demand notice, remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer to address the objections raised by the petitioner before proceeding with the reassessment. The court highlighted the importance of following due process and legal precedents in such matters.

5. The court clarified that the decision to set aside the reassessment order was based solely on the grounds of the Assessing Officer's failure to address the objections raised by the petitioner. The court allowed the petition with costs, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal procedures and principles in matters of reassessment under the Income Tax Act.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised by the petitioner, the legal arguments presented, and the court's decision based on established legal principles and precedents.

← Previous Next →