9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside the reassessment order by holding that the assessing authority had not supplied the reasons for reassessment even though the assessee was made aware of the crux of the case and the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing and the assessee had actively contested the case before the assessing authority ? 2. The findings of the learned Tribunal with regard to quashing of the aforesaid impugned reassessment order is that the reasons recorded by the assessing authority for reopening the assessment were never communicated to the assessee though the same were produced before the learned Tribunal for perusal. The findings of the Tribunal are quoted below for ready reference : Thus it is clear that vide letter dated December 21, 2011, the assessee has once again reiterated a request for furnishing the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. The assessee has stated that the Assessing Officer has not furnished the reasons recorded for reopening despite earlier request vide letter dated February 10, 2010. It is the case of the Revenue that the reasons were furnished to the asses see on November 4, 2011. The learned Departmental representative has placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal gains tax on the above sale from the assessment year 2009-10. As Sri V. Ramaiah was assessed to tax under this ward, the above information was passed on to this office. Sri V. Ramaiah has stated in the statement recorded under section 131 of the Income-tax Act that sale proceeds of ₹ 45.62 crores has not been offered to tax. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued asking the asses see to file the return of income. Shri Ramaiah vide letter dated February 10, 2011, filed in the office on February 11, 2011 has stated that the return filed by him on July 30, 2009, with the Income-tax Officer, Ward 5(2) vide acknowledgment No. 000760 declaring income of ₹ 2,56,922 should be taken as return filed in response to section 148 of the Income-tax Act. Subsequently the assessee filed a letter dated November 22, 2011, wherein he has stated that the return filed under protest on February 11, 2011, declaring an income of ₹ 3,06,922 should be taken as return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee has also filed a copy of computation of the total income along with the return. That last para of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns prior to completion of reassessment is mandatory and therefore any development post completion of reassessment without furnishing of the reasons would not affect or obliterate the mandatory condition and the legal consequence thereof. The reasons supplied after completion of the reassessment becomes irrelevant as far as the jurisdiction issue of the Assessing Officer is concerned to decide the validity of reassessment. Similar view has been taken by the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Trend Electronics [2015] 379 ITR 456 (Bom) in I. T. A. No. 1867 of 2013 as well as the Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT v. Samcor Glass Ltd. (supra). In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has failed to furnish the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment despite the repeated requests of the assessee then the reassessment completed without compliance of the mandatory condition of furnishing the reasons recorded is not sustainable and therefore the same is bad in law. Accordingly, we quash the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lapse. In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision in GKN Driveshaft's case, it goes to the root of the matter and renders the reassessment order passed by the assessing authority without recording such reasons and communicating the same to the assessee, as being without jurisdiction. 6. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue that in the order sheet dated November 4, 2011, in the reassessment proceedings were duly noted by the authorised representative appearing on behalf of the assessee and therefore, such assessee should be deemed to have been made aware of the reasons for reopening does not impress us. 7. The Tribunal has clearly noted in its order after looking into the record of the case that the reasons which were placed before the learned Tribunal itself only for the first time were never communicated to the assessee during the contemporary period. Mere participation of the assessee or authorized representative in the reassessment proceedings does not amount to the assessee being made aware or known of the reasons for such reopening. The reasons now quoted by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order clearly indicates that they are pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
