Case Law Details
Girraj Prasad Gilara HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
The revenue has not disputed that the assessee has raised the objections vide letter dated 19th July, 2016 against the notice issued under section 148 of the IT Act.
Assessee has raised the objections against the reopening of the assessment on the ground that there is no tangible material to conclude or to form the opinion that due to Client Code Modification Facility used by the broker the income of the assessee assessable to tax has escaped assessment. These objections raised by the assessee no doubt are required to be disposed off by the AO by a separate and speaking order before passing the reassessment order.
As the AO has not dealt with and disposed of the objections raised by the assessee against reopening of the assessment on merits meaning thereby has disposed of the objections without considering the objections on merits solely on the ground that assessee has not filed return of income within period not less than 30 days from the date of receipt of notice under Section 1 48 of the Act, impugned orders disposing of the objections are hereby quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded to the AO to consider, decide and dispose of the objections on its own merits and in accordance with law and in light of the observations made herein above. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the AO within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ of the present order. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits with respect to legality and validity of the notice under Section 148 of the Act or even with respect to objections raised against the reopening of the assessment for respective assessment years.
Requirement of disposing off the objections against the notice issued under section 148 by a separate and speaking order is a mandatory requirement in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (supra), the failure of the AO to dispose off the objections renders the reassessment order not sustainable in law. In the case in hand there is complete failure on the part of the AO to dispose off the objections against notice u/s 148 of the Act and not merely a procedural irregularity of separate and speaking order. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and specifically involving the issue of addition of Rs. 2,71,317/-, we find that in this case the AO does not deserve a second inning. Accordingly, without remitting the matter to the record of the AO, the reassessment order passed by the AO is set aside being invalid.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
