ITO, WD-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RST HOLDINGS (P) LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 163/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 February 2018AY 2002-20033 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections against the reopening before passing the assessment order, which was a violation of the Supreme Court's directions. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s action of annulling the assessment was upheld.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed appeals against the annulment of assessment orders by the CIT(A) for AYs 2001-02 and 2002-03. This was the second round of litigation, with the ITAT having previously remanded the matter to the AO to first decide the assessee's objections to the reopening.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO properly disposed of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment as per Supreme Court directions before passing the assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 148

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, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA

Hearing: 13.12.2017Pronounced: 15.02.2018

ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM Both these appeals filed by the revenue are against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)- 2, Kolkata dated 09.11.2015 for AYs 2001-02 and 2002-03.

2.

The main grievance of the revenue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in annulling the assessment orders passed in pursuance of the ITAT’s order dated 01.09.2011.

3.

This is the second round before this Tribunal. Brief facts of the case for both the years are that the original assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was done after reopening the assessments by issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. When the matter travelled up to the Tribunal in the first round, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had objected to the reopening suggested by the AO. However, the Tribunal took note of the fact that the AO has not disposed of the objections raised by the assessee as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO & Ors. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). Therefore, the Tribunal vide order dated 01.09.2011 remanded the matter back to the file of the AO to first decide the objection raised by the assessee against the reopening and thereafter to proceed in accordance to law. Thereafter, pursuant to the Tribunal’s direction,

2 & 163/Kol/2016 RST Holdings (P) Ltd.., AY- 2001-02 & 2002-03 the AO has passed the order on 20.12.2012. However, the Tribunal’s direction to the AO to address/dispose of the assessee’s challenge against reopening was not heeded to by the AO before passing the assessment on 20.12.2012. Taking note of the omission on the part of the AO in not disposing of the challenge raised by the assessee against reopening which was against the explicit direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. (supra) was found to have been again flouted by the AO. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has annulled the assessment proceedings. Aggrieved, the revenue is before us.

4.

We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the Tribunal vide order dated 01.09.2011 had remanded the original assessment order pursuant to reopening, back to the file of AO, and directed the AO to first dispose of the challenge/objection raised by the assessee against reopening of the assessment as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. Pursuant to the same, the AO, has passed the order on 20.12.2012 without addressing the objection raised by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment. This is in flagrant violation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s direction in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. (supra). The Ld. DR could not bring to our notice as to whether the AO has disposed of the challenge raised by the assessee against the reopening. Without doing so, the order passed by the AO is unsustainable. It has to be remembered that as per Article 141 of the Constitution, the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all courts. The AO while framing the assessment is acting as a quasi judicial authority and is bound to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Violation of the same makes the order of assessment fragile in the eyes of law and, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) for both the assessment years in question and consequently dismiss both the appeals of the revenue.

5.

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 15.02.2018 Sd/- Sd/- (J. Sudhakar Reddy) (Aby. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 15th February, 2018 Jd.(Sr.P.S.)

Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. 1. Appellant – ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata. Respondent – M/s. RST Holdings (P) Ltd., 3B, Lal Bazar Street, 2nd 2 Floor, Kolkata-700 001.

3. The CIT(A) Kolkata

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →