Case Law Details
Jansampark Advertising & Marketing P. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Settled position of law as held by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 308 ITR 38 [ Delhi] is that the requirement of recording the reasons, communicating the same to the assessee, enabling the assessee to file objections and the requirement of passing a speaking order are all designed to ensure that the Assessing Officer does not reopen assessments which have been finalized on his mere whim or fancy and that he does so only on the basis of lawful reasons, and since these steps are also designed to ensure complete transparency and adherence to the principles of natural justice, any deviation from these directions would entail the nullifying of the proceedings.
Admittedly in the case on hand, the reasons supplied to the assessee are not the same and verbatim. In view of this settled position of law and respectfully following the line of decision in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 308 ITR 38 [ Delhi] by the higher forum referred to in the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Wimco Seedlings (supra), we find it difficult to sustain the validity of the reopening of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and consequently quash the same.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Aggrieved by the order dated 28/10/2016 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) in the case of M/s Jansampark advertising and marketing (P) Ltd (“the assessee”), for the assessment year 2004-05, assessee preferred this appeal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
