9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the revenue that the revenue should be allowed to decide the objections now and the impugned orders should not be quashed, is having no force because as a sequel the impugned orders become illegal and will have to be quashed. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the revenue is that the revenue should be permitted to pass speaking order so also fresh assessment orders simultaneously. This submission has been objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the right of the petitioner to challenge adverse orders after adjudication on the objections of the petitioner, if any, cannot be taken away. We find merit in her submission. The petitioner may have his legal remedy. The Court c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 156 of the I.T. Act and under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the I.T. Act (Annexures P-18 and P-19), for the assessment year 2006-2007 ( in CWP No.5813 of 2018 ) and for the assessment year 2007-2008 ( in CWP No.5872 of 2018 ) respectively. FACTS 2. The petitioner had filed return on 02.11.2006 for the assessment year 2006-2007 declaring income of ₹ 2,15,250/- and filed return on 13.10.2018 for the assessment year 2007-2008 declaring income of ₹ 2,89,914/-. The returns were processed under Section 143(1) of the I.T. Act. Notice under Section 148 dated 23.03.2016 was issued for reassessment, but the petitioner did not receive the said notice. The revenue alleged that the notice under Section 142(1) dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being authenticated or certified by the legal keeper thereof, as contemplated by law and therefore, the revenue should supply legal documents to enable the petitioner to file objections to the proceedings. Still without complying with the said legal demand, a notice dated 16.12.2016 was issued to him as to why the assessment should not be finalized by 20.12.2016. 3. On 20.12.2016, the petitioner repeated his request and reiterated his stand that the notices and the documents, i.e. authenticated were not received by the petitioner and would definitely file his returns/ objections to 'reasons to believe' on receipt thereof. Respondent No.2, however, continued to ask the petitioner to file return/objection without complying with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot in dispute. She submitted that after receipt of the objections, the same are mandatorily required to be considered and a 'speaking order' is required to be made and served on the petitioner. Upon such 'speaking order' being made, the petitioner would be entitled to take up his legal remedies. The petitioner is also entitled to raise the plea of limitation which is the legal plea. However, the revenue passed the impugned order making assessment on the next day, i.e. 14.02.2018. The reason for not adjudicating on the objection is unwarranted. She, therefore, prayed for allowing the petition in entirety and in the alternative for remand. 6. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents-Income Tax Department vehemently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been made as the same is mandatory. The various averments in the petition made by the petitioner about non-service of notice under Section 148 dated 23.03.2016, notice under Section 142 (1) dated 25.07.2016 and 07.11.2016 are not required to be considered for the simple reason that the counsel for the revenue has agreed that the objections having been filed on 13.02.2018 should have been decided. In other words, with this premise, whether notices were served on the petitioner nor not, loses significance. The ultimate object of service of notice on the petitioner was to give him an opportunity to file the objections. 9. The conceded position by both the parties in these present petitions is that the objections on facts as well as on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner has seriously disputed that the petitioner caused any delay. We are unable to agree with the reason given by the authority since the objections ought to have been decided, as fairly stated by the counsel for the revenue. 11. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the revenue that the revenue should be allowed to decide the objections now and the impugned orders should not be quashed, is having no force because as a sequel the impugned orders become illegal and will have to be quashed. 12. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the revenue is that the revenue should be permitted to pass speaking order so also fresh assessment orders simultaneously. This submission has been objected to by the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
