VENKATARAMAN REDDY AAVULA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(5), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2031/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 March 2022AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to follow the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. before completing the reassessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from a reassessment order passed ex-parte under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the reasons for reassessment were not supplied and the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. was not followed.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment was validly completed without supplying reasons and adhering to the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI Dr. M.L. MEENA

Hearing: 07.03.2022Pronounced: 08.03.2022

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Bench: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai, in dated 25.04.2019. The Assessment was framed by Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-10(5), Chennai for the relevant A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 26.12.2018 u/s. 144 r/w s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

1.

(A.Y 2011-12) Shri Venkataraman Reddy Aavula :- 2 -: 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the Assessing Officer (A.O) has framed reassessment exparte u/s. 144 of the Act and moreover reasons were not supplied to the assessee and completed the reassessment without adhering to the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. Vs. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). For this, the ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to ground No.2, which reads as under:

“2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the re-assessment completed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act without adjudicating into the correctness of assuming jurisdiction for completing the said re-assessment and further erred in not adjudicating the correctness of completion of reassessment without adhering to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case reported in 259 1TR 19 without assigning proper reasons and justification.”

3.

The ld. counsel for the assessee took us through the assessment order and drew our attention that the assessment is exparte and framed assessment u/s. 144 r/w s. 147 of the Act. The ld. counsel for the assessee further stated that once reasons are not supplied and the procedure laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. Vs. ITO, supra, has not been followed, the matter has to go back to the file of A.O for following the procedure as prescribed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. Vs. ITO, supra.

(A.Y 2011-12) Shri Venkataraman Reddy Aavula :- 3 -: 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. D.R has not objected. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts of the case, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matter back to the file of A.O and direct the A.O to follow the procedure prescribed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. Vs. ITO, supra. We direct accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →