9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pening of the assessment of the year under consideration. 2. The Ld.AR submitted that the reopening of assessment is not valid on several grounds. One of the grounds urged by the assessee is related to non-disposal of the objection raised by the assessee against reopening of the assessment. The Ld.AR submitted that as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19(SC), the assessee can request the AO to supply the reasons for reopening of assessment, after filing of return of income in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). After receipt of reasons for reopening of assessment, the assessee is entitled to file his objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Bombay High Court has examined the effect of the non-disposal of the objection before finalization of the assessment order in the case of KSS Petron Private Ltd., vs. ACIT (supra).For the sake of convenience, we extract below the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court:- "2 Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2003-04. 3 Appeal admitted on the following re-framed substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer after having quashed/ set aside the order dated 14th December, 2009 passed by the Assessing Officer without having disposed of the objections filed by the appellant to the reasons recorded in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Assessment. 7 On further Appeal, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. By the impugned order it held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in finalizing the Assessment, without having first disposed of the objections of the appellant. This impugned order holds the Assessing Officer is obliged to do in terms of the Apex Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., v/s. ITO 259 ITR 19. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer were quashed and set aside. However, after having set aside the orders, it restored the Assessment to the Assessing Officer to pass fresh order after disposing of the objections to re-opening notice dated 28th March, 2008, in accordance with law. 8 We note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September, 2006. In the affidavit, it is stated that consequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 14th August, 2013, the Assessing Officer has not passed any order of re-assessment. Time was granted on the last occasion to enable the Respondent to respond to the affidavit dated 19th September, 2006 of the Director of the Appellant-Company. The Respondent is unable to dispute the facts stated in the affidavit dated 19th September, 2016 filed by the Director of the Appellant-Company. The time to pass an order on the notice dated 28th March, 2008, even consequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal, has lapsed. 11 Therefore, on the above facts and law, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
