9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 17-10-2017 - SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR ORDER Both these appeals of the assessee arise from the common order of the ld. CIT(A)-17, New Delhi vide order dated 15.04.2016 for assessment years 2007-08 2008-09. 2. The assessee pressed only legal ground and requested that the legal issue may be heard first. Therefore, additional legal grounds of appeal are taken up first which are reproduced hereinbelow: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned reassessment order u/s 143(3)/147 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nka Lime Chemical Ltd [2015] 64 Taxman 313 [SC] wherein it has been held as under: High Court by impugned order held that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid-whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed-Held, yes [In favour of assessee] . 5. In the case of Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. ITO [2011] 333 ITR 237 [Del], the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: Merely affixing a yes stamp and signing underneath suggested that the decision was taken by the Board in a mechanical manner as such, the same was not a sufficient comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed before the lower appellate authorities. Consequently, the said contention cannot be raised before the Court for the first time. The appellant has stated that the return was filed by the assessee on 27th March, 2000 and the notice under s. 143(2) was served upon the Authorised Representative of the assessee by hand when the Authorized Representative of the assessee came and filed return. However, the date of the notice was mistakenly mentioned the 23rd March, 2000. Assuming the aforesaid to be true, the notice was served on the Authorized Representative simultaneously on his filing the return which clearly indicates that the notice was ready even prior to the filing of the return. The provisions of s. 143(2) make it clear that the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind independently while issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. On this count also, the assessment deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the legal grounds of the assessee are allowed. 11. I find that the legal issues raised in ITA No. 1263/DEL/20117 are identical to the issues raised in ITA No. 1262/DEL/2017 for assessment year 2008-09 decided by me hereinabove. Accordingly, my order hereinabove on this issue shall be identically applicable in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 as well. 12. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 17.10.2017. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
