9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reasons recorded, which in the present case admittedly was not adhered to by the AO, since the copy of approval u/s 151 which has a reference to the reasons recorded and, thus, are to be mandatorily provided to the assessee, in absence of which the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO in initiating the proceedings u/s 147 was found to be invalid. Accordingly, the assessment order passed u/s 147, dehors the obedience of the settled position of law pertaining to compliance of the procedures is liable to be quashed, and we do so. In the result ground no. 1 of the assessee in terms of our aforesaid observations is allowed. - SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM For the Assessee : Shri R.B. Doshi, CA For the Revenue : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeal is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 27/07/2022, for the AY 2013-14, which is arises out of the order of Ld. AO u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, dated 23/12/2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the present appeal are as under: 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts. 2. The Ld. AO erred in issuing notice u/s 147 of the Act. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred to supra. 4. At the very initiation of the hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee, referring to the ground No. 1 of the present appeal that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts, have drawn our attention to ground No. 1 raised before the Ld. CIT(A), the same is extracted as under: 1. That the order passed u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, is bad in law and on facts. a) that the Ld. AO fail to provide reasons recorded for the reopening of assessment u/s 147. 5. In the context of aforesaid ground observations of the Ld. CIT(A) were also shown before us, wherein Ld. CIT has rejected the contention of the assessee stating that the assessee has by and large been informed the issue at hand and she had been given adequate opportunities to defend her case, thus, as her rights to express and defend her case has been fully provided, that the appellant assessee has not initially responded to the AO notices, therefore, the relevant ground challenging the reopening is rejected. On such observations of the Ld. CIT(A) , Ld. AR has submitted before us that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was kept deprived by not providing the reasons for reopening on the AR reasons, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of his assessment u/s.147 of the Act; therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction by him and framing of the impugned assessment cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. My view above is supported by the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Agarwal Metals and Alloys Vs. ACIT Ors. (2012) 346 ITR 64 (Bom.). In its order mentioned above, the Hon ble High Court had, after taking cognizance of the fact that the A.O in the case before them had failed to communicate the reasons to believe based on which the case of the assessee was reopened, quashed the assessment by treating the same as having been passed in a brazen violation of the governing principles of law. The relevant observations of the Hon ble High Court are culled out as follows: 4. On these admitted facts, it is evident that there has been a complete violation of the applicable principles of law by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was required to communicate the reasons for reopening the assessment which he has failed to do. The Assessing Officer despite the judgment of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) has faile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue to adhere with certain guidelines. The Hon ble Bombay High Court s direction a/w observations qua providing the reasons to the assessee are extracted as under: We are surprised to notice that paragraph no.3 in the actual reasons is missing in the letter dated 6th August, 2021. Paragraph no. 4 in the letter dated 6th August, 2021 is missing in the reasons given for obtaining approval. 7. If one considers paragraph no.3 of the actual reasons submitted for obtaining approval, which is missing in the letter of 6th August 2021, it clearly shows change of opinion. It also gives us an impression this omission was deliberate, being aware of the legal position. We are also surprised how the approval was also given after reading paragraph no.3 of the actual reasons. 8. following: In the circumstances, the Revenue is directed to adhere to the (a) While communicating the reasons for re-opening the assessment, a copy of the standard form/request sent by the Assessing Officer for obtaining approval of the Superior Officer should itself be provided to the assessee. This would contain comment or endorsement of the Superior Officer with his name, designation and date. The Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the assumption of valid jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. However, where the complete reasons were not provided to the assessee, instead only extract were provided i.e., also after expiry of a reasonable time, under such circumstances respectfully following the judgment in the case of Haryana Acrylic (supra) the assessment proceedings u/s 147 are liable to be held as bad in law. Further, the directions accorded by Hon ble Mumbai High Court extracted here in above, accordingly, as per para 8(b) of the said order, it is incumbent upon the assessing officer to provide the assessee any other document or a letter or a report a/w the reasons recorded, which in the present case admittedly was not adhered to by the Ld. AO, since the copy of approval u/s 151 which has a reference to the reasons recorded and, thus, are to be mandatorily provided to the assessee, in absence of which the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO in initiating the proceedings u/s 147 was found to be invalid. Accordingly, the assessment order passed u/s 147, dehors the obedience of the settled position of law pertaining to compliance of the procedures is liable to be quashed, and we do so. In the result ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
