9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nish the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice. On 7th August, 2015 and 26th October, 2015 the Assessing Officer furnished to the petitioner a copy of the reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice. The petitioner filed its objections on 7th December, 2015. The objections were disposed of by the Assessing Officer by an order dated 28th March, 2016. On 28th March, 2016 itself a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner directing it to attend hearing on 30th March, 2016 at 5.00 p.m. 4. The petitioner by letter dated 30th March, 2016 pointed out to the Assessing Officer the decision of this Court in Asian Paints Ltd. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another 296 ITR 90 which restrains an A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016. However, in the present facts we are compelled to entertain this Petition for further consideration. This for the reason that prima facie, the manner in which the proceedings of assessment have been conducted evidences a predetermined mind to pass an order on reassessment. Therefore the same was done without following the principles of natural justice by pleading fait accompli so as not to follow the decision of this Court in Asian Paints Ltd. (supra). This is for the reason that four weeks time to be provided to the Assessee in terms of the order of this Court in Asian Paints Ltd. (supra) cannot be honored as the time to complete the Assessment expires on 31st March, 2016 and the objection were disposed of only on 28th March, 2016. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31st March, 2016. Normally these unusual circumstances would have been mentioned in the orders. However, even if one proceeds on the basis it is factually so, why did the Assessing Officer not commence the reassessment proceedings earlier than 28th March, 2016? Fixing the hearing on 28th March, 2016 hardly gives the Assessing Officer time to properly examine and consider the return and the Assessee's submissions as the order has to be passed before 31st March, 2015. Therefore the decision taking process stands vitiated. 8. Moreover we also notice that the assessment order is dated 31st March, 2016 while the demand notice under Section 156 of the Act is a date prior ie. 30th March, 2016. This again is sought to be explained by the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould require consideration. The authority concerned must factor in the time period of four weeks while disposing of the objections before commencing reassessment proceedings. Prima facie this appears also to be a case of breach of natural justice as no sufficient time was given to the assessee to meet the objections of the Revenue and for the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's response to it. We have given a detailed order at the interim stage, because normally we do not entertain a Writ Petition wherein assessment order has been passed after participation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings. However looking at the context in which the assessment order has come to be passed, prima facie, we are of the view that it wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
