Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (8) TMI 674 - AT - Income Tax


Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre for assessment year 2015-16, specifically regarding the assessment made under section 148 of the Act and the reasons supplied by the Assessing Officer.

Assessment under Section 148 of the Act:
The appellant contested the assessment made under section 148 of the Act, arguing that the Assessing Officer failed to provide proper reasons as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO. The appellant highlighted that the reasons supplied were illegible and provided after a significant delay, rendering them non-compliant with legal requirements. Despite repeated requests for legible reasons, the Assessing Officer proceeded with the assessment without addressing the appellant's objections, leading to a proposed addition under section 69C of the Act.

Legal Proceedings and Decision:
Upon appeal, the CIT (Appeals) acknowledged the appellant's contentions, noting that the reasons for re-opening the assessment were neither legible nor readable. The CIT (Appeals) emphasized that the failure to provide clear reasons violated the procedural standards set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the GKN Driveshafts case, rendering the reassessment legally flawed. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed on the grounds of inadequate compliance with legal requirements. The CIT (Appeals) declined to delve into other legal grounds or merits due to the fundamental legal flaw in the reassessment process.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed based on the inadequacy of the reasons provided for the reassessment, leading to the quashing of the reassessment order as legally defective. The decision was in line with the legal precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in assessment procedures.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates