| |
| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 3963 (Bang-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 148
Where AO had not disposed of the objections with regard to validity of reopening of assessment by a speaking order and it was clear that mandatory procedure of disposal of objection by AO before proceeding with the assessment was not followed therefore, the order of assessment cannot be sustained and has to be quashed.
|
Reassessment - Validity - AO not disposed of the objections with regard to validity of reopening of assessment -
Assessee sold an agricultural land and claimed that no capital gain was chargeable to tax. AO, however, issued a notice under section 148. According to assessee, he was not served with any notice under section 148 but the personnel of Department visited the assessee at his village and instructed the assessee to file the return of income. Assessee also submitted that he should be given a copy of the reasons recorded by AO before issue of notice under section 147. AO passed order under section 143(3) in which it was mentioned that the notice under section 148 was served on the assessee and that the land in question was a capital asset and therefore, the capital gain was to be brought to tax. Held: AO had not disposed of the objections with regard to validity of reopening of assessment by a speaking order. It was clear that mandatory procedure of disposal of objections by AO before proceeding with the assessment was not followed and therefore the order of assessment cannot be sustained. Assessee's case was squarely covered by the case of M/s. Deepak Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Dy. CIT, Central (2017) 80 taxmann.com 77 (Karn) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0853 (Karn-HC) and accordingly it was held that order of assessment passed was vitiated and liable to be annulled.
Followed:GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO and Others (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0734 (SC). CIT, Chennai. v. M/s. Pentafour Software Employees' Welfare Foundation (2019) 312 CTR 35 (Madras) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6375 (Mad-HC) M/s. Jayanthi Natarajan Versus Asstt. CIT (2017) 401 ITR 215 (Mad) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4164 (Mad-HC), M/s. Deepak Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central (2017) 80 taxmann.com 77 (Karn) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0853 (Karn-HC) PR. CIT-2, Vadodara v. Sagar Developers (2016) 72 taxmann.com 321 (Gujarat) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3617 (Guj-HC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2009-10
IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|