MONO STEEEL (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the legal ground that the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s.147 were without juri iction, as there was no valid reason to believe that income has escaped assessment.

The learned CIT(A) erred is not adjudicating the ground that the assessment order passed without compliance of mandatory procedure u/s.144B is void ab initio and non-est in law.

The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that when the assessee had duly filed submission including workings under Form 10CB, the assessment could not have been completed ex-parte u/s.144. 4. The assessee craves leave to add, alter amend or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company which filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 13,76,41,770/-. The assessment was originally completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 05.12.2018, determining the total income at Rs. 26,83,75,625/-. On scrutiny of the assessment records, the learned Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown a profit of Rs. 13,07,33,858/- on sale of steam power to its own unit. It was further observed that this issue had not been verified during the original assessment proceedings and therefore required examination in the context of section 80-IA(8) of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer also noticed that the assessee had paid rent amounting to Rs. 13,72,50,000/-, which, according to him, required verification. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act

The reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act are without juri iction and liable to be quashed. 2. The assessment order passed without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 144B of the Act is non est in law in terms of section 144B(9). 3. The invocation of section 144 of the Act was unwarranted and bad in law. It was prayed that these grounds, being legal in nature, ought to have been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have carefully perused the records and find merit in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. It is evident that the Ld. CIT(A), while setting aside the assessment order and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer, has not adjudicated the legal grounds raised by the assessee relating to juri iction under section 147, validity of the assessment under section 144B, and invocation of section 144 of the Act. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of non-adjudication of the aforesaid grounds and restore the same to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file all relevant submissions, documents, and evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and cooperate in the appellate proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयुᲦ/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडᭅ फाईल / Guard file.