9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in affirming the jurisdiction of AO under section 147 read with 148, ignoring that the AO has not followed the procedure of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in GKN Drive Shaft case 259 ITR 19(SC) 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the jurisdiction of the AO u/s 147 in view of the facts that the AO has not followed the due process of law as held by the Apex Court in GKN Drive Shaft (Supra) before framing the reassessment 4. The CIT(A) has further erred in not appreciating that AO has proceeded to assess that income which does not form part of reasons recorded particularly when the income for which the AO has assumed jurisdiction has been accepted by the AO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under: "Further, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Jayant Patel (supra) , learned AO should have allowed four weeks' time to the assessee to seek their legal remedies after rejection of the objections of the assessee. In view of the fact that the AO has disposed of the objections of the assessee on 22.11.11 and passed the assessment order on 19.12.2011, it is clear that no such time was granted to the assessee. " 6. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Bharat Jayantilal Patel [supra] reads as under: "21. For the first contention of Mr.Pardiwalla to be considered, it is material to note that on 11th September, 2014 the petitioner addressed a detailed commu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Officer reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19 and Asian Paints Ltd. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. reported in (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom). The petitioner specifically invited the attention of the assessing officer to the directions in the case of Asian Paints (supra) and to the effect that if the assessing officer does not accept the objections to the reopening of the assessment or the reasons recorded, he shall not proceed further in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt or service of the said order on the assessee. Since the order dated 5th March, 2015 is stated to be rejecting the objections, then, the assessee prayed that for a period of four weeks from that order, no steps should be taken. 23. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
