9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in proceedings dated 12.09.2016 is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. The petitioner prayed to quash the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself along with the said liberty. 2.The facts in nutshell to be considered is that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing climate control systems, clusters and audio head units for passenger Cars. The petitioner has filed its Income Tax electronically on 30.09.2009 for the assessment year 2009-10. The 1st respondent initiated assessment proceedings by issuing notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act on 18.08.2010 followed by notice dated 05.12.2012 under Section 143 (2) read with S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer in notice dated 25.01.2016 issued under Section 148 of the Act. However, subsequently, the reasons were furnished and the petitioner submitted its objections for reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2009-10. The impugned order disposing the objections was passed on 12.09.2016 and the categorical objections given with reference to the reasonings furnished by the 1st respondent has not been considered nor any findings are given. Thus, the impugned order is non-speaking and the respondent issued the order without any application of mind. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner solicited attention of this Court with reference to the objections filed by the petitioner on 13.06.2016 with reference to the reasons give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as if by reproducing the provisions of the Act, the Assessing Officer is empowered to reopen the assessment. Once Section 147 of the Act is invoked and notice under Section 148 of the Act is issued, then, the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the procedures contemplated as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India. 7.The notice issued under Section 143 (2) of the Act in proceeding dated 04.02.2016 was undoubtedly premature and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, in respect of the other Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.39546 of 2016, made a submission that the said notice was not acted upon. Thus, the said Writ Petition was allowed. However, subsequently, the procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and no income has escaped assessment owing to the same. A copy of the submission and specified Annexure is attached to this letter as 'Annexure 4'. 2. Non-deduction of tax at source on fee for technical services Vide submission dated 22 February, 2013, a detailed submission reconciling Schedule 5 and 9 of Tax Audit Report was submitted before the AO. All material facts were fully disclosed during the course of original assessment proceedings. We submit most humbly that this tantamount to review of same set of material as available during the course of assessment proceedings and hence any attempt to re-examine the same would result in change of opinion. A copy of the submission and relevant Annexure is attached to this letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copy of the submission and relevant Annexure is attached to this letter as 'Annexure 7'. Based on the above, we submit that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment qualifies as change of opinion on the same set of material. Hence, the said proceedings lack jurisdiction and accordingly, not maintainable. 8.The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the said objections submitted elaborately furnishing reasons are not even looked into nor considered by the respondents while disposing of the objections. 9.Perusal of the order impugned dated 12.09.2016 in disposing of the objections filed by the petitioner reveals that none of the objections raised by the petitioner was considered nor any findings are made available an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een complied with. Thus, a non-speaking order in this regard cannot be sustained and therefore, the impugned order is to be construed as lacking, on application of mind and the objections raised by the petitioner are not considered, nor a finding is given. Contrarily, the impugned order has been passed merely reproducing the provisions of the statute which is insufficient and therefore, this Court is inclined to consider the Writ Petition. 11.In view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings No.AAACM6890R/556- V/2009-10 dated 12.09.2016 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondents for reconsideration of the objections submitted by the petitioner for reopening of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
