9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (supra) and Trend Electronics [ 2015 (9) TMI 1119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] hold that since the procedure required to be followed has not been followed the entire assessment proceedings are vitiated and therefore we hold the assessment order passed by the AO to be bad in law and thus set it aside. Appeals of the assessee are allowed. - ITA Nos. 3860 & 3861/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2021 - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Mahesh Thakur, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI , AM : Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Form 26AS noted that assessee had received ₹ 4,15,17,529/- on 13.12.2010 from the Land Acquisition Officer. He accordingly issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 13.06.2013. Thereafter AO framed assessment u/s 147 r.w. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.03.2015 determining the total income at ₹ 2,11,85,500/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who vide orders dated 14.06.2016 in Appeal No.122/2015-16 and 121/2015-16 for A.Ys. 2010-11 2011-12 respectively, dismissed the appeals of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us and has raised the following grounds in Appeal No.3860/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11: 1. That having regard to the facts and circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 5. Similar grounds has been raised by the assessee in Appeal No.3861/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12. 6. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that the facts in both the appeals are identical except for the year and the amounts involved and therefore submissions made by him while arguing appeal for one assessment year would be equally applicable to the other. Learned DR did not controvert the aforesaid submission made by the Learned AR. 7. Before us, Learned AR submitted that in the present case for A.Y. 2010-11, the original assessment was framed u/s 143(3). Thereafter notice u/s 148 was issued on 13.06.2013. He submitted that the assessee in response to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 492/2018 vide order dated 03.05.2019. He therefore submitted that when AO has not followed the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court, the order passed by the AO may be set aside. On the merits of the addition made by the AO, he relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Gordhan in ITA No.3996/2018 order dated 15.01.2019 of Delhi Benches, ITA No. 5391/Del/2017 order dated 02.12.2020 in the case of Ram Kishan vs. ITO and the decision rendered in the case of Jaswant Singh (ITA No.567/Chd/2018, order dated 18.01.2019) rendered by the Chandigarh Tribunal. 8. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities and further submitted that non disposal of the objections of re-assessment proceedings by a separ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. Thus the procedure that was required to be followed by the AO was to dispose of the assessee s objections by passing a speaking order. In the present case it is an undisputed fact that there was a failure by the AO to comply with the mandatory requirement of disposing of the objections raised by the assessee to the reopening of assessment in terms of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. (supra). We further find that Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trend Electronics (2015) 379 ITR 456 (Bom), after considering the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
