9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reassessment proceedings are commenced. The Assessing Officer disposes of these objections and if satisfied with the objections, then the impugned reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act is dropped/withdrawn otherwise it is proceeded with further. In issues such as this, i.e. where jurisdictional issue is involved the same must be strictly complied with by the authority concerned and no question of knowledge being attributed on the basis of implication can arise. We also do not appreciate the stand of the revenue, that the respondent-assessee had asked for reasons recorded only once and therefore seeking to justify non-furnishing of reasons. We expect the state to act more responsibly. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1867 OF 2013 - - - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessment Year 200809. On receipt of notice, the respondent-assessee by letter dated 28 April 2010 sought copy of recorded reasons for reopening of assessment in respect of notice dated 26 March 2010 under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer by letter dated 29 April 2010 directed the respondent-assessee to file it's return of income and also informed the respondent-assessee that the reasons would be furnished after the return of income is filed. The respondent-assessee thereafter by letter dated 7 May 2010 informed the Assessing Officer that return of income filed on 29 September 2008 under Section 139 of the Act be treated as the return of income consequent to notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch a notice bad in law. In the above circumstances, the appeal of the respondent-assessee was allowed by the Tribunal. 7. Mr. Pinto, the learned Counsel for the revenue submits that the respondent-assessee had only asked for reasons once and did not further ask for reasons. Further he submits that as the respondent-assessee had participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer, it must be implied that reasons were furnished. 8. We find that the impugned order merely applies the decision of the Apex Court in GNK Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra). Further it also follows the decision of this Court in Videsh Sanchanr Nigam Ltd. (supra) in holding that an order passed in reassessment proceedings are bad in law in the absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s dropped/withdrawn otherwise it is proceeded with further. In issues such as this, i.e. where jurisdictional issue is involved the same must be strictly complied with by the authority concerned and no question of knowledge being attributed on the basis of implication can arise. We also do not appreciate the stand of the revenue, that the respondent-assessee had asked for reasons recorded only once and therefore seeking to justify nonfurnishing of reasons. We expect the state to act more responsibly. 9. In view of the fact that the order of the Tribunal has only applied the settled position of law in allowing the respondent-assessee's appeal. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 10. Accordingly appeal dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
