9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent has not at all dealt with the contentions raised by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts [ 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] had specifically held that the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the assessee's objections by passing a speaking order. In as much as this requirement of law as laid down by the Supreme Court has not been complied with, the respondent is directed to dispose of the petitioner's objections by passing a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We refrain from interfering with the impugned notices. If the assessing officer chooses to reject the petitioner's objections by passing a speaking order, then, it is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pement of income but only for verification of certain transactions. In response to the same, the first respondent replied that notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued only after obtaining necessary approval from the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner and hence, the reopening is in accordance with law. Thereupon, the present writ petitions came to be filed questioning the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening the assessment. 2.The respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit seeking to justify the initiation of the impugned proceedings. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. I am of the view that the preliminary point raised by the petitioner's counsel in para 2 of the rejoinder deserves to be accepted. The said para reads as follows:- 2.The petitioner submits that he had asked the reasons for reopening the assessment which was furnished by the first respondent and the same has been extracted in the affidavit. A mere reading of the reasons would show that there is no escapement of income as contemplated in the notice issued under Section 148. Further, the petitioner has filed a reply dated 13.06.2018 objecting to the reopening on the ground that the reasons recorded do not point any escapement of income but only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was escapement of income. It was further contended that for the purpose of carrying on verification exercise, reopening cannot be ordered. Though such specific contention was raised, instead of dealing with the same, by passing a speaking order, the first respondent chose to merely inform the assessee that the proceedings have been initiated only with the approval of the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner. The first respondent has not at all dealt with the contentions raised by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts had specifically held that the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the assessee's objections by passing a speaking order. In as much as this requirement of law as laid down by the Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
