9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri J.D. Mistry And Shri Ninad Patade For the Revenue : Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr. DR ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 29-01-2020 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [ Ld.CIT(A) ] and it relates to Assessment Year (AY.) 2009-10. In this appeal, the assessee has, inter alia, challenged the validity of the reopening 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 assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd (supra) and accordingly, the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed. He submitted that this contention of the assessee would get support from the decision rendered by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of KSS Petron Private Ltd., vs. ACIT in Income Tax Appeal No.224 of 2014, dt. 3rd October, 2016. 4. We heard the Ld.DR and perused the record. We notice that the 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:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant's income on the basis of the reasons recorded for issuing of re-opening notice dated 28th March, 2008. 6 Being aggrieved, the appellant carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated 6th July, 2011, the CIT(A) dismissed the Appeal. Thus, confirming the order dated 14th December, 2009 of the Assessing Officer, passed without disposing of the appellant's objection for re-opening 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 153 (2A) of the Act as in force at the relevant time itself provides that an order of fresh Assessment, consequent to the order of Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act, would have to be passed within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order under Section 254 of the Act, was passed by the Tribunal and received by the Commissioner of Income Tax. 10 The Director of the appellant has filed an affidavit dated 19th 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
