9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is made clear therein that the reasons for reopening must be provided to the assessee, who in turn is entitled to make his objections on such reasonings and that the AO has to pass a reasoned order on such objections. AO has proceeded to pass an order of assessment directly without following the procedures laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. case. It is true that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to issue 143(2) notice after waiting for sometime from the date of issuance of 148 notice. But at the same time, it is to be seen that before passing the impugned order of assessment, the above two communications of the petitioner were placed at the hands of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in all fairness, the Assessing Officer should have given the material details, so as to enable the petitioner to file their objections and passed a speaking order on those objections thereafter. No such procedures are followed in this case impugned order of assessment dated 29.11.2018 cannot be sustained. Therefore, this Court is inclined to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for furnishing the details sought for by the petitioner through their communication dated 29.08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suspicion and not based on any tangible material on record. The respondent also vaguely stated that the petitioner has undertaken some transactions without mentioning the nature/parties to the transactions. The respondent failed to share the details despite specific request made by the petitioner through their letters dated 29.08.2018 and 17.09.2018. Without even waiting for the petitioner to file its objections to the reasons for reopening, the respondent issued notice under Section 143(2) dated 21.08.2018 and thereafter, passed the impugned order of assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 dated 29.11.2018. Therefore, the entire assessment proceedings is vitiated as the same was passed against the principles of equity and natural justice. The respondent failed to follow the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19. 4. The respondent filed two separate counter affidavits. The crux of the contentions raised therein is as follows: In view of the fact that notice under Section 148 has already culminated into the order of assessment dated 31.12.2018, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above contention on the question of violation of the principles of natural justice, the form 26AS information is already available on record with the Assessing Officer and therefore, the transactions referred in the reasons for reopening based on those Form 26AS information, are not the new or tangible material available to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment, that too, after a period of four years. Therefore, he contended that even on the ground of limitation, the reopening and consequential assessment have to go. 6.On the other hand, Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue contended that the petitioner failed to give any objection of the reasons for reopening within 45 days of furnishing the reasons and therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly proceeded to issue notice under Section 143(2) on 21.08.2018 and further proceeded to pass the assessment order on 29.11.2918. It is also contended by her that the reasons furnished on 06.07.2018 itself contains the material information and therefore, the petitioner is not prevented from making an objection within time. 7. Heard both side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 194C) 7,28,837/- 7,28,837/- 3 2010-2011 TDS-94C ₹ 5,77,402/- payment to interest other than interest on securities (Section 194A) 58,634/- 58,634/- M/s.GE T D India Limited has made some transactions in the PAN of the amalgamated company after 5 years of amalgamation. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and accordingly, the assessment needs to be reopened u/s.147 of the IT Act, 1961. 9. The petitioner, no doubt, has not filed their objections immediately and on the other hand, through their communication dated 29.08.2018 and 17.09.2018, addressed to the respondent, requested to share the partywise details of transactions referred to in the communication dated 06.07.2018 so that they can reconcile the same and submit their objections against the reopening. It is specifically stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ils. Therefore, it is necessary for the respondent to furnish those details to the assessee so as to enable them to file their objections in effective manner. 12. It is relevant to mention at this juncture that in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. case, the Apex Court has laid down the principles as to how the reopening of the assessment should be proceeded with, commencing from the issuance of notice under Section 148 onwards. It is made clear therein that the reasons for reopening must be provided to the assessee, who in turn is entitled to make his objections on such reasonings and that the Assessing Officer has to pass a reasoned order on such objections. In this case, I find that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to pass an order of assessment directly without following the procedures laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. case. It is true that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to issue 143(2) notice after waiting for sometime from the date of issuance of 148 notice. But at the same time, it is to be seen that before passing the impugned order of assessment, the above two communications of the petitioner were placed at the hands of the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
