9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No doubt Ld. DR has relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. C. Palaniappan [2011 (3) TMI 589 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that non-furnishing of reasons was only a supervening illegality and would not render the proceedings void by itself. However, we find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Samcor Glass Ltd [2015 (12) TMI 773 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Trend Electronics [2015 (9) TMI 1119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] had held that jurisdictional issues should be strictly complied with by the authorities concerned and no question of knowledge being attributed on the basis of implication can arise. Once a jurisdictional High Court decision is there on a particular legal issue, this Tribunal being a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at paper book page 9 that the reasons were being sought by virtue of the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. ITO [(2003) 259 ITR 19]. As per the Ld. AR, such reasons were never supplied to the assessee. Ld. AR submitted that assessee might have been aware of the reasons but still the AO having not furnished the reasons to the assessee, assessment was void-ab-initio. Accordingly, as per the Ld. AR, assumption of jurisdiction without supplying the reasons, despite a specific request from the assessee was void in view of the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra). Ld. AR submitted that this issue was taken by the assessee before the CIT (A) in first appeal. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uilder. Capital gains arising to this transaction was not reported and assessee had failed to file a return of income for impugned assessment year. It was for this reason that the assessment was reopened. Assessee had never filed a return for the impugned assessment year. In the return filed pursuant to the notice assessee had computed capital gains on the very same property. Thus according to the Ld. DR assessee was aware of the reason for which notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. Assessee had actively participated in the assessment proceedings also. Thus according to him assessee on the one hand was asking for a copy of reasons, but whereas on the other hand it had declared income on account of capital gains on the very same transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Ltd [supra] and Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Trend Electronics [supra] had held that jurisdictional issues should be strictly complied with by the authorities concerned and no question of knowledge being attributed on the basis of implication can arise. Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kothari Metals (supra), where a reopening was attempted on a return subject to processing u/s.143(1) of the Act, had held as under at para 6 of its judgment dt.14.08.2015 : 6. The question of non-furnishing the reasons for re-opening an already concluded assessment goes to the very root of the matter. After filing of the return in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act or on request of the asessee requestin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
