'a' new delhi before shri rajpal yadav, judicial member and ... - ITAT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4ITA No. 4806/Del/10Asstt. Year 2001-023. Ld. DR on the other hand contended that in the case of HaryanaAcrylic a regular asstt. u/s 143(3) was made. In the present case, it isonly 143(1). Thus there is no regular assessment in the present case.She further contended that observations made by the Hon’ble HighCourt were in respect of the issue whether AO has supplied the reasonsor not. The Hon’ble High Court was considering the ratio laid down bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shaft reported in259 ITR 19. The Hon’ble High Court has observed that reasons are tobe given in a reasonable time. Apart from this one aspect Hon’ble HighCourt has find a number of other issues and then declared theassessment invalid. Ld. Counsel for the assessee in rebuttal submittedthat no doubt the Hon’ble High Court has examined the dispute in thatcase with a number of angles but one of the angle was in respect of nonsupply of reasons within 6 years.4. We have duly considered the rival contention and gone throughthe record carefully. Admittedly the reasons were not supplied to theassessee by 31 st March, 2008 i.e. within a period of 6 years from the endof the asstt. year. The question before us is whether valid service of
5ITA No. 4806/Del/10Asstt. Year 2001-02notice has been served upon the assessee within the limitation providedu/s 149 (1) (b) of the Act. According to this section the notice ought to beserved within 6 years from the end of the asstt. year. The contention ofthe assessee is that Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that if thereasons recorded by the AO for reopening of assessment has not beensupplied or served within 6 years then it will be construed that no validnotice has been served upon the assessee within 6 years. Theauthoritative observation made by the Hon’ble High Court in thisconnection read as under :-24. Thirdly, it could be argued that the reasons supplied to thepetitioner in September, 2004 be disregarded so also the objectionsfiled by it as also the impugned order dated 2-3-2005 and the reasonsnoted in the said form be now taken as the reasons for the issuance ofthe notice under section 148 and the petitioner may now prefer hisobjections, if any, and thereupon the Assessing Officer be directed topass a speaking order. In other words, such an argument requires usto sweep all the proceedings emanating from the supply of reasons inSeptember 2004 and culminating in the passing of the order dated 2-3-2005 ‘under the carpet’, as it were. And, starting the process as per thedirections given in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.’s case (supra) afreshconsidering the reasons noted in the said form to be the actual reasonsfor the issuance of the notice under section 148. If we were to acceptthis argument, we would have to ignore the directions given by the
Page 1 and 2: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA
Page 3: 3ITA No. 4806/Del/10Asstt. Year 200
Page 9: 9ITA No. 4806/Del/10Asstt. Year 200

'a' new delhi before shri rajpal yadav, judicial member and ... - ITAT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?