Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which partly allowed the assessee's appeal against an assessment order. The core issue revolved around the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to follow the mandatory procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. by not disposing of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment with a speaking order. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed as being without jurisdiction.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and conducted, specifically if the Assessing Officer had disposed of the assessee's objections before proceeding with the assessment.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 250, 148, 142(1), 153(2), 153(2A), 11(1)(c), 11, 143(2), 254, 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, E BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai 608, 6th Floor, MTNL Building, Cumbulla Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026.Maharashtra …………. Appellant Vs Tata Education and Development Trust Bombay house, Ground floor, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. Maharashtra [PAN:AABTT5628C] …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Department : Shri Biswanath Das For the Respondent/Assessee : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Shri. Atual T. Suraiya Date Conclusion of hearing : 17.02.2025 Pronouncement of order : 30.04.2025 O R D E R
Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
The present appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order, dated 19/09/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. Assessment Year 2013-2014 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)has erred in allowing the exemption to the assessee u/s 11(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to fulfil the condition under section 11(1)(c) of the Act by making foreign donations of Rs. 27,67,50,000/- during AY 2013-14 to Harward Business School, USA and hence cannot be treated as application for charitable purpose in India?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exemption to the assessee u/s 11(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the fact that the Harward Business School, USA is not promoting any "international welfare in which India is interested?
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exemption to the assessee u/s 11(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the fact that the CBDT vide its order dated 10.11.2015 explicitly mentions that such 'purpose' falling u/s 11(1)(c) is subject to verification during course of assessment proceedings and that the assessee has failed to bring it on record during the reassessment proceedings?” 2.1. The Assessee has filed application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 [for short ’ITAT Rules’] On the issue of validity of reassessment proceeded decided against the Assessee by the CIT(A):
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction and bad in law in terms of sections 147 to 150 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. The relevant facts in brief are that vide Assessment Order, dated 30/03/2022, assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was framed on the Assessee-Trust for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 assessing total income of the Assessee at INR.25,13,84,024/- as against the returned loss of INR.2,53,65,977/- after making addition of INR.27,67,50,000/- in relation to alleged foreign remittance made by the Assessee- Trust to Harward Business School, USA.
2 Assessment Year 2013-2014 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition made by the Assessing Officer by rejecting Assessee’s claim under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act in respect of application of Income of INR.27,67,50,000/-. It was contended before the Learned CIT(A) that on merits the Tribunal had decided identical issue in favour of the Assessee in appeals for the Assessment Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Vide order, dated 19/09/2024, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee. While the challenge to the validity of reassessment proceedings was dismissed by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) was pleased to grant relief to the Assessee on merits by deleting the addition of INR.27,67,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer holding that the Assessee was eligible to claim exemption for the aforesaid amount under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act.
Being aggrieved, by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. The Assessee has filed application under Rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (for short ‘ITAT Rules’) supporting the order passed by the CIT(A) on the ground that reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and bad in law (reproduced in paragraph 2.1 above).
We have heard both the sides and have perused the materials on record.
7. Since the issue of the validity of reassessment proceedings travels to the root of the matter we would first take up the issue in application filed by the Assessee under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules.
3 Assessment Year 2013-2014 8. During the course of hearing, Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee vehemently contended that in the present case the objection filed by the Assessee against the initiation to reassessment proceedings were not disposed off by the Assessing Officer. After the objections were filed the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) on 21/03/2022 and proceeded to frame assessment without following the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (GKN Driveshaft India) Limited Vs. ITO: GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2002] 125 Taxman 963 (SC)/[2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC))[25-11-2002] was not followed by the Assessing Officer. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment proceedings and therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer was bad in law.
9. Per Contra, the Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). However, the Learned Departmental Representative could not controvert the averment made by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee that the Assessing Officer had failed to disposed off the objections raised by the Assessee before proceeding to frame assessment.
We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and examined the position in law.
10.1. In the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra), notice under Section 148 of the Act read with Section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the assessing officer calling upon the Assessee in that case to give details in connection with the return of income. In a 4 Assessment Year 2013-2014 writ petition filed by the Assessee, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court took the view that the petition was premature. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Though the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, holding as under:
“We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge. However, we clarify that when a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the Assessing Officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10.2. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, laid down the following procedure to be adopted in case of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act: (a) On receipt of notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the notice/Assessee must file return of income and seek reasons recorded for reopening assessment from the assessing officer; (b) In case the notice/Assessee seeks the reasons recorded as stated in (a) above, the assessing officer must furnish reasons within reasonable time. (c) On receipt of reasons from the assessing officer, the notice/Assessee can file objections to reopening of assessment (d) the objections raised by the notice/Assessee must be disposed off by the Assessing Officer by passing a speaking order before proceedings with the assessment. 10.3. We note that in the present case the Assessee has acted in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 5 Assessment Year 2013-2014 the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited (supra). In the present case notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 05/01/2021, and in response to the same the Assessee filed return of income on 01/02/2021 and requested for reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Thereafter, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 10/02/2021 whereby reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were communicated to the Assessee. The Assessee filed objections to reopening of assessment vide letter dated 11/05/2021. However, the Assessing Officer instead of disposing off the objection raised by the Assessee by a speaking order, proceeded to issue notice under Section 142(1) of the Act on 21/03/2022. Thus, the Assessing Officer failed to follow the procedure for reopening the assessment as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited (supra). During the course of hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 1(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors: [2025] 171 taxmann.com 800 (Bombay) [Writ Petition No. 3248 of 2022, dated 27/01/2025] wherein in the identical facts it was held as under:
“6. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
In this matter, vide assessment order dated 25 March 2016 made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, the returns filed by the Petitioner were assessed and accepted, and the claim under Section 80-IA was revised.
8. The petitioner was issued the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 30 March 2021, seeking to reopen the assessment. In compliance with the notice, the petitioner filed a return on 7 April 2021. On 12 May 2021, the Petitioner requested the reasons for reopening, which 6 Assessment Year 2013-2014 were furnished to the Petitioner on 6 July 2021.
On 4 August 2021, the Petitioner filed objections to the reopening of the assessment by raising several contentions. Without disposing of such objections, on 22 November 2021, the Petitioner was issued a notice under Section 142(1) directing it to justify its claim under Section 80-IA with supporting documents.
10. On 26 November 2021, the Petitioner requested the Respondents to dispose of the objections filed by the Petitioner before proceeding any further. The Petitioner made a specific reference to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited Vs ITO. The Petitioner also referred to this Court's decision in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors', which had provided that an assessee must be given a reasonable period of about four weeks to take any remedial course of action should the assessee's objections to the reopening be rejected by the revenue.
11. The Petitioner's objections were never disposed of, but the impugned consolidated reassessment order dated 31 March 2022 was made, in which the Petitioner's objections were also purported to be disposed of.
Apart from the fact that the making of such consolidated or combined orders was not approved in some decided cases, which we propose to refer to, we think that such a procedure also involves breaching the principles of natural justice and fair play.
The assessing officer in Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd (supra) made a similar combined order. Neither were the assessee's objections disposed of by a separate order, nor was the assessee granted any reasonable opportunity of questioning the order disposing of the objections. In such circumstances, the Court, after analysing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft (supra) and following its earlier precedents in KSS Petron Private Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(2) and M/s Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax-10(3) quashed the combined order on the ground of want of compliance with jurisdictional parameters.
Accordingly, we cannot accept Mr Suresh Kumar's contention 7 Assessment Year 2013-2014 about there being no infirmity in the impugned consolidated order dated 31 March 2022, given the above decisions referred to by us rendered in substantially similar facts.
The Petitioner has, no doubt, instituted an Appeal after the filling of this Petition. However, Mr Pardiwalla clarified that this was only to protect from the bar of limitation. He further pointed out that the factum of the institution of this Petition and the reason for the institution of the Appeal were clarified in the appeal memo. Further, this factum of the institution of the Appeal after the institution of this Petition was brought on record through an affidavit in a rejoinder in these proceedings. He submitted that since the impugned order is vitiated due to noncompliance with jurisdictional parameters, there is no point in relegating the Petitioner to the alternate remedy of Appeal. He submits that where an order is wholly without jurisdiction, the rule of exhaustion of alternate remedy can always be bypassed.
Since the impugned consolidated order warrants interference due to noncompliance with jurisdictional parameters, relegating the Petitioner to the alternate remedy would not be appropriate. As noted earlier, this Court has interfered with consolidated orders in almost identical circumstances, making assessments and disposing of objections. Therefore, Mr. Suresh Kumar's objection based on exhaustion of alternate remedy cannot be sustained in the facts of the present case.
For all the above reasons, we allow this Petition and make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as follows:- "(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the case leading to the issue of the impugned notice and passing of the impugned order and after going through the same and examining the question of legality thereof quash, cancel and set aside the impugned notice (Exhibit O) dated March 30, 2021 and impugned order (Exhibit W) dated March 31, 2022;" 10.4. To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of KSS Petron Private Ltd. v. Assistant 8 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(2) CIT : IT Appeal No. 224 of 2014, dated 3/10/2016] cited by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee. In that case following substantial question of law was admitted and answered in favour of the assessee: “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 support of the re-opening Notice dated 28th March, 2008.?” In the above case the assessing officer, without disposing of the objections of the assessee, completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. The issue travelled to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessing officer was bound to follow the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Private Limited (supra). Since, the assessing officer had not disposed off the objections, the reassessment order was set aside and the assessing officer was directed to pass fresh assessment order after disposing off the objections. In appeal preferred by the assessee, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court answered the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee holding that in the facts of that case the Tribunal was not correct in restoring the issue back to the file of assessing officer for passing the fresh assessment. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:
“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 9 Assessment Year 2013-2014 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 28 March, 2008, in accordance with law.
8 We note that once the impugned order finds the Assessment Order is without jurisdiction as the law laid down by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (supra) has not been followed, then there is no reason to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer to pass a further/fresh order. If this is permitted, it would give a licence to the Assessing Officer to pass orders on re-opening notice, without jurisdiction (without compliance of the law in accordance with the procedure), yet the only consequence, would be that in appeal, it would be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after following the due procedure. This would lead to unnecessary harassment of the Assessee by reviving stale/ old matters.
9 In fact, to ensure that re-opening notices are disposed of, expeditiously the parliament itself has provided in Section 153(2) of the Act a period of limitation within which the Assessing Officer must pass an order on the notice of re-opening i.e. within one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice was issued. In fact, Section 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 19 September, 2006. In the affidavit, it is stated that consequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 14 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 a order on the notice dated 28th March, 2008, even consequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal, has lapsed.
10 Assessment Year 2013-2014 11 Therefore, on the above facts and law, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Appellant- Assessee and against the Respondent-Revenue.” (Emphasis Supplied)
10.5. In the case of Bayer Material Science (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax-10(3) [2016] 66 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay)/[2016] 237 Taxman 723 (Bombay)/[2016] 382 ITR 333 (Bombay)[27-01-2016], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee holding that draft assessment order passed without disposing off the objections to reopening of assessment filed by the assessee was not sustainable and without jurisdiction. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:
“11. In the present facts, we find that the draft Assessment order was passed on 30th March, 2015 without having disposed of the Petitioner's objections to the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice. The reasons were supplied to the Petitioner only on 19th March, 2015 and the Petitioner had filed the objections to the same on 25th March, 2015. This passing of the draft Assessment order without having disposed of the objections is in defiance of the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra). Thus, the draft Assessment order dated 30th March, 2015 is not sustainable being without jurisdiction. This for the reason that it has been passed without disposing of the objections filed by the Petitioner to the reasons recorded in support of their impugned notice. Accordingly, we set aside the draft Assessment order dated 30th March, 2015. We are not dealing the validity of the reasons in support of the impugned notice in the present facts as the time limit to pass the Assessment order as provided under 4th Proviso to sub-section(2) of Section 153 of the Act has already expired when the petition was filed.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10.6. In the case of Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. v. Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panjim [Tax Appeal No.63 Of 2007, dated 30-8-2019], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while dealing with the issue of reopening of assessment under Section 11 of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1987, 11 Assessment Year 2013-2014 held that assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing officer was bad in law as the assessing officer had failed to dispose of the objections to reopening of the assessment filed by the assessee before proceedings with the reassessment proceedings. While arriving at the said conclusion, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had, placing reliance of the above two judgments, held as under: “18. The moot question is, therefore, the disposal of the objections by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 26th March, 2004 constitutes sufficient compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) or, whether it was necessary for the Assessing Officer to have first disposed of the Appellant's objections by passing a speaking order and only upon communication of the same to the Appellants, proceeded to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 1997-98.
Virtually, an identical issue arose in the cases of Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. (supra) and KSS Petron Private Ltd. (supra) before the Division Benches of our High Court at Bombay.
In Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. (supra), by a notice dated 6/2/2013, the Revenue sought to reopen the assessment in the year 2007-08. The Assessee filed a revised return of income and sought for reasons recorded in support of the notice dated 6.2.2013. The reasons were furnished only on 19.3.2015. The Assessee lodged objections to the reasons on 25th March, 2015. The Assessing Officer, without disposing of the Petitioner's objections, made a draft assessment order dated 30th March, 2015, since this was a matter involving transfer pricing. In such circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court, set aside the assessment order by observing that the Court was unable to understand how the Assessing Officer could, at all, exercise the jurisdiction and enter upon an inquiry on the reopening notice before disposing of the objections on the reasons furnished to the Assessee. This Court held that the proceedings initiated by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), on the basis of such a draft assessment order, were without jurisdiction and quashed the same.
Similarly, in the case of KSS Petron Private Ltd. (supra), this Court was concerned with the following substantial question of law:
12 Assessment Year 2013-2014 "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 support of the re- opening Notice dated 28th March, 2008?"
In the aforesaid case, the Assessing Officer had purported to dispose of the objections to the reasons in the assessment order, consequent upon reopening of the assessment. This Court, however, held that the proceedings for reopening of assessment prior to disposing of the Asessee's objections by passing a speaking order, was an exercise in excess of jurisdiction.
KSS Petron Private Ltd. (supra), this is what the Division Bench has observed at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Judgment:
"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 reopening notice dated 28th March, 2008, in accordance with law.
We note that once the impugned order finds the Assessment Order is without jurisdiction as the law laid down by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (supra) has not been followed, then there is no reason to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer to pass a further/fresh order. If this is permitted, it would give a licence to the Assessing Officer to pass orders on reopening notice, without jurisdiction (without compliance of the law in accordance with the procedure), yet the only consequence, would be that in appeal, it would be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after following the due procedure. This would lead to unnecessary harassment of the Assessee by reviving stale/ old matters."
According to us, the rulings in Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. (supra) and KSS Petron Private Ltd. (supra) afford a complete 13 Assessment Year 2013-2014 answer to the contentions raised by Ms. Linhares in defence of the impugned order.
Since, in the present case, the Assessing Officer has purported to assume the jurisdiction for reopening of the assessment, without having first disposed of the Assessee's objections to the reasons by passing a speaking order, following the law laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra), Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. (supra) and KSS Petron Private Ltd. (supra), we are constrained to hold that such assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was ultra vires Section 11 of the said Act. The first substantial question of law will, accordingly, have to be answered in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent-Revenue.
As noted earlier, in view of the aforesaid, there is no necessity to advert to the second substantial question of law, at least, in so far as this Appeal is concerned. The Appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned orders dated 26th March, 2004 made by the Assessing Officer, 30th November, 2004 made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and 12th January, 2007 made by the ITAT are set aside on the ground of want of compliance with jurisdictional parameters by the Assessing Officer, and without going into the second substantial question of law framed in this Appeal. Accordingly, we clarify that the second substantial question of law, raised in this Appeal, is not to be treated as decided in this Appeal, one way or the other.
The Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs”. (Emphasis Supplied)
10.7. Thus, in view of the above judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, it can be concluded that the Assessing Officer was under obligation to dispose of the objections raised by the Assessee to reopening the assessment by way of a speaking order before passing the reassessment order provided the Assessee had acted in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited.
10.8. We note that in the present case the Assessee has acted in 14 Assessment Year 2013-2014 accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited (supra). On the other hand, the Assessing Officer did not dispose off the objections raised by the Assessee to reopening of assessment by way of a speaking order and thus, failed to comply with judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited (supra). Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the reassessment order, dated 31/03/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act is quashed as having been passed without jurisdiction. The Application filed by the Assessee under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules and the ground raised therein is allowed. The grounds raised by the Revenue in the appeal are, therefore, dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Even otherwise, we find that on merits the CIT(A) had granted relief to the Assessee by following the decisions of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, and therefore, the order passed by the CIT(A) did not call for any interference on merits.
In result, in view of the above, the application filed by the Assessee under Rule 27 ITAT Rules and grounds raised therein is allowed, while the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed.