2017 (8) TMI 327 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - speaking order before proceeding with the reassessment proceedings - Held that - Assessing Officer is mandated to decide the objection to the notice under sec. 148 and supply or communicate it to the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee gets an opportunity to challenge the order in a writ petition. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer may pass the reassessment order. It is not open to the Assessing Officer to decide the objection raised against notice under sec. 148 by a composite assessment order. Thus, the Assessing Officer was required to first decide the objection of the assessee filed under sec. 148 and serve a copy of the order on assessee. It is well settled law that the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 and issuance and service of notice u/s 148 is a jurisdictional matter and whenever such a jurisdiction is challenged, then it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to pass an order either rejecting the assessee s objection or drop the proceedings in case he agrees with such an objections. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Compliance with the law regarding disposal of objections by the Assessing Officer.
3. Applicability of judicial precedents on the validity of reassessment proceedings.

Issue 1: Validity of Reassessment Proceedings:
The appeal was filed against the order dated 19.3.2011 for the assessment year 1999-2000. The assessee challenged the validity of the order passed under sections 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, claiming it to be bad on facts and in law. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on unexplained deposits in the bank account, leading to the addition of a specific amount. The appellant contended that the provisions of section 148 did not apply to the case and objected to the reopening of the assessment. Despite specific directions by the Tribunal to dispose of the objections, the Assessing Officer failed to comply, leading to a challenge on the validity of the reassessment proceedings.

Issue 2: Compliance with Disposal of Objections:
The Assessing Officer did not address the objections raised by the assessee regarding the validity of reopening the assessment under section 147/148 as required by law. Even after the Tribunal's directions to dispose of the objections, the Assessing Officer failed to comply, which was deemed a violation of the mandatory requirement of law. The failure to address the objections and comply with the Tribunal's directions led to the vitiating of the reassessment proceedings, as highlighted in various judicial precedents, including the case of G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO and Pr.CIT vs. Tupperware India (P) Ltd.

Issue 3: Applicability of Judicial Precedents:
The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, such as the case of Suresh Chandra, to emphasize the importance of the Assessing Officer's compliance with the law in disposing of objections raised by the assessee. Failure to follow the prescribed procedure, as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered the reassessment proceedings void ab initio. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to address objections separately from the assessment order led to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, ultimately resulting in the allowance of the assessee's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings and the subsequent order were void ab initio due to the Assessing Officer's failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of law in disposing of the objections raised by the assessee. The appeal was allowed, and the reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 were quashed.