9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the mandatory procedure of disposal of the objection by Assessing Officer before proceeding with the assessment has not been folio ed and exercise of power can be said as not only vitiated, but the order of assessment cannot be sustained - also see SHRI. LAKSHMANA, S/O. LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH case [ 2021 (7) TMI 1141 - ITAT BANGALORE] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1080/Bang/2015 and C.O. No. 106/Bang/2017 - - - Dated:- 24-9-2021 - N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President And B.R. Baskaran, Member (A) For the Appellant : Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R. For the Respondents : S.V. Ravishankar, A.R. ORDER Per B. R. Baskaran, Accountant Member The revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 20.3.2015 passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was noticed that the assessee has declared business income u/s. 44AD of the Act in the original return of income filed by the assessee. During the course of survey operation, it was noticed that the assessee has made investment in M/s. Venkateshwara Hotel Project at Mogarahalli. However, the said investment was neither reflected nor explained in the original return of income. Accordingly, assessing officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 11.10.2012. The A.O. completed the assessment by determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 1,79,470/-. 6. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee raised following grounds with regard to the validity of reopening of assessment. 1. The assessment Order passed U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f insertion of sub-sec. 6 to Sec. 44AD with retrospective effect from 01.0,1..2011 or prior to insertion of Sub-Sec. 6 to Sec. 44AD by the specific application of Sec. 44AA. As regards the alleged work progress report relied upon by the A 0, the moot question for consideration is with reference to which information which was not furnished by the assessee in the return filed, the A 0 is comparing the information gathered during the survey to hold that non-furnishing of such information in the return can be construed as non-disclosure of full and true material facts necessary for assessment? The A.O. has failed to note that the information if any gathered during survey could at best be considered as good information for a regular assessment f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, vide his letter dated 11.2.2013, asking the assessee to file objections, if any for the proposed additions. The Ld. A.R. submitted that this is not the procedure prescribed under any of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. He submitted that the assessee, vide his letter dated 18.2.2013, requested the A.O. to furnish the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment proceedings. He submitted that the letter of the assessee is placed at page Nos. 11 12 of the paper book. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the A.O., vide his letter dated 19.2.2013, furnished copy of order sheet noting, wherein the reasons have been recorded before the A.O. Thereafter, the assessee filed his objections to reopening, vide a detailed letter dated 01-03-2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 94 taxmann.com 84 (SC). Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be restored to the file of the A.O. 11. In the rejoinder, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the dismissal of SLP by Hon'ble Supreme Court will not result in merger of decision rendered by Hon'ble Madras High Court. He submitted that the above said principle has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala (2000) 113 taxmann 470. He submitted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision rendered in the case of Deepak Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is binding on the Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that identical issue has been examined by the coordinate bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench in the case of Sri Lakshmana (supra) and the relevant observations made in this regard are extracted below: 9. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. The facts are undisputed that the assessee raised objections with regard to validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147 of ale Act by his letters dated 03.10.2016 and 24.10.2016 after filing the return of income. The admitted position is the AO has not disposed off the objections by a speaking order. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the mandatory procedure of disposal of objection by the AO before proceeding with the assessment has not been followed and therefore the order of assessment cannot be sustained and has to be quashed. The decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
