9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st re-opening has to necessarily deal with each of the objections raised and express his decision on those objections. A mere statement of power vested on the authority under Section 147 is not enough to presume that he has applied his mind to the objections. This Court makes it very clear that it is not expressing any view on the merits of the above contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, as this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 22.11.2018 and remit the matter back to the AO to pass fresh orders, by considering all the objections raised by the petitioner, through their communications dated 09.11.2018 and 18.11.2018. - W.P.No.33072 of 2018 And WMP.No.38343 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2018 - Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he IT Act, 1961. However, for the purpose of compliance, they also filed a return of income dated 20.01.2018. In the very same communication, the petitioner sought for furnishing the reasons for re-opening the assessment. The Assessing Officer through a communication dated 20.04.2018 has furnished the reasons. It is stated therein that one of the Director of the petitioner-Company viz., Dattatray Ramkrushna Shete has sold a property for ₹ 97,37,500/- on 23.07.2012; that the said transaction has been duly considered in the income of the petitioner-Company; however, the market value of the property was ₹ 3,21,61,000/- and since the market value of the property was more than the amount for which the property was sold by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos.8.1 8.2. Therefore, he submitted that the Assessing Officer is not entitled to now re-open the assessment by changing his view on the same issue. Apart from raising the above said contention, the learned Senior Counsel further contended that the reliance placed on by the Assessing Officer to Section 50C of the IT Act, 1961, to re-open, is totally erroneous, as the said provision is applicable only in respect of capital gain and not in respect of business income, as has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment. 5. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submitted that the Assessing Officer, while passing the order dated 22.11.2018 has only referred to the objection raised by the petitioner on 18.11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh to presume that he has applied his mind to the objections. At the same time, this Court makes it very clear that it is not expressing any view on the merits of the above contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, as this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 22.11.2018 and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to pass fresh orders, by considering all the objections raised by the petitioner, through their communications dated 09.11.2018 and 18.11.2018. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the first respondent/Assessing Officer to pass fresh orders after considering the objections raised by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
