LATE MADANLAL BANSAL, REP. BY L/R SMT.SANJOGITA BANSAL,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 423/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2018AY 2009-20103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO is mandated to dispose of preliminary objections by passing a speaking order before proceeding with assessments after re-opening. The appeals were restored to the AO for compliance.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed returns for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. The assessments were re-opened under Section 148 and completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. The assessee's objections to the re-opening were not disposed of by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO correctly proceeded with assessments without disposing of the assessee's objections to the re-opening notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),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, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

: Mr.V.Narendra Kumar, Adv. अपीलाथ' क* ओर से/ Appellant by : Mrs.Sumathi Venkataraman, ()यथ' क* ओर से /Respondent by JCIT : 21.05.2018 सुनवाई क* तार�ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा क* तार�ख / : 21.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 in & ITA No.107/CIT(A)-5/14-15 dated 19.12.2016 for the Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively.

& 423/Chny/2017 :- 2 -:

2.

Shri Madanlal Bansal, the assessee filed his returns of income for the Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 on 14.08.2008 & 30.07.2009 admitting a total income of Rs.2,46,620/- & Rs.3,16,070/- respectively. Subsequently, these assessments were re-opened u/s.148 and the AO completed the assessments u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 on 19.03.2014 determining the total income at Rs.6,98,280/- and Rs.6,15,950/- respectively.

3.

Aggrieved, against these orders the assessee filed appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed them. Against the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed these appeals.

4.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR invited our attention to the additional grounds of appeals filed for both the Assessment Years pleading that the AO is not correct in passing the orders of assessments u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 for both the Assessment Years, without passing the orders, disposing the objections to the re-opening raised by the assessee.

5.

We heard the rival submissions.

6.

We find merits in the plea raised by the Ld.AR. As per the principles laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd’s case (2003) 259 ITR 19, on receipt of the preliminary objections from the & 423/Chny/2017 :- 3 -:

assessee to issuance of notice u/s.148, the AO is mandated to dispose of such preliminary objections by passing Speaking Order before proceeding with the assessments in respect of the Assessment Years, for which, such notice has been issued. Since preliminary objections of the assessee have not been disposed for both these Assessment Years, the AO is directed to pass a Speaking Order on the preliminary objections of the assessee and then proceed in accordance with the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case cited supra. Thus, both the appeals are restored to the AO for making due compliance in accordance with the Hon’ble Apex Court ratio.

7.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in & 423/Chny/2017 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on May 21, 2018, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →