9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trary, the order dated 20/02/2015 disposes of an imaginary objection, not taken by the petitioner, by a reasoned order. The least that is expected of Assessing officer while disposing of the objections filed by the Assessee is some application of mind to the objections raised by the Assessee and in that context, take a relook at the reasons recorded in support of the reopening notice. On such a fundamental lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer in disposing of the objections was pointed out to us, we expected the State-Revenue would withdraw the order and crave liberty to pass a fresh order dealing with the objections of the petitioner. Therefore, we decided to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer disposing of the objections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amongst various contentions raised by the petitioner was the fact that they were not holding any mining leases. Thus, the second reason recorded would not apply. This is so as they were only in the business of buying of Iron ore, processing it and exporting the processed Iron ore. Besides, various other contentions were also urged with regard to reopening not being sustainable on grounds of under invoicing of exports. 5. The Assessing Officer, by an order dated 20/02/2015, disposed of the petitioner's objections contained in the letter dated 09/02/2015. In the order dated 20/02/2015 disposing of the objections, the Assessing Officer, did not deal with the petitioner's objection that no income is earned from mining leases as they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stainable and may require reconsideration at the hands of the Assessing Officer. However, the same was opposed to by the Revenue and in support, reliance was placed upon an affidavit dated 06/05/2015 of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, seeking to justify the order dated 20/02/2015 and in particular, paragraphs 8 and 10, which state as under : 8. I say that the assessee may be only in trading however, during his assessment he was assessed as a company involved in mining etc. which was accepted by the assessee and it is at this belated stage that he has pointed out that he is only into trading only to get out of this situation. In any case assuming that the assessee is only into trading the contents of the notice with regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents. The procedure laid down by the Apex Court is a very salutary provision as it ensures that an Assessee is not dragged into a reassessment proceedings unnecessarily. Therefore, before commencing the reassessment proceedings, an Assessing Officer can have a second look at his reasons in the context of the objections of the Assessee. To ensure that there is due application of mind, the Apex Court has directed that the objections be disposed of by a speaking order. Thus, the basis of the entire above procedure is an honest and objective second look at the reasons for reopening the assessment in the context of the objections. 8. In the present facts, we find that it has been the petitioner's case at all times (including during the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he objections of the petitioner. However, to our dismay, the Revenue is still attempting to justify its order disposing of the petitioner's objections even though it is clear as daylight that the objection was chalk and the order disposing of the objections, was dealing with an imaginary ground of cheese. In fact, paragraph 8 and 10 of the Affidavit dated 06/05/2015 supporting the impugned order indicates the attitude of the Revenue that right or wrong, the impugned notice for reopening is sustainable. The entire procedure laid down by the Apex Court to ensure that unwarranted reopening of assessments do not take place, is being frustrated by this attitude. The Officers of the Revenue should realise that they are not mere revenue collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned notice. This can hardly be an explanation for not having dealt with the objection as filed by the petitioner and in fact dealing with an imaginary objection in the order disposing of the objections. In other words, the Revenue contends that even if the Assessing Officer has not dealt with the petitioner's objection properly, yet the notice for reopening is sustainable on some other grounds. This is not what is expected of the Assessing Officer while dealing with the objections. In any case, the manner in which the objection of the petitioner that they do not own any mining leases has been dealt with by the order dated 20/02/2015, casts a doubt on the entire order disposing of the objections dated 20/02/2015 as to what has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
