Tribunal dismisses assessee's petitions, upholds reassessment order despite objections, stresses AO's duty to address objections.

The tribunal dismissed both Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the assessee, as one appeal became infructuous with no mistake found, and the other regarding the reassessment order was deemed valid despite the assessee's objections. The tribunal held that the assessee's lack of cooperation with the Assessing Officer led to an ex parte order, and found no errors in its decision based on applicable judgments. The tribunal emphasized the necessity for the AO to address objections raised by the assessee against reopening in a speaking order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against combined tribunal order for two appeals of the assessee for the same assessment year.
2. Dismissal of one appeal as infructuous due to no apparent mistake found.
3. Contention regarding the reassessment order being bad in law.
4. Allegation of apparent mistake in the tribunal order not in line with specific judgments.
5. Examination of co-operation with the AO and the applicability of cited judgments.
6. Dismissal of both M.Ps. filed by the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with two M.Ps. filed by the assessee against a combined tribunal order for two appeals for the same assessment year. One appeal was directed against the main order of CIT (A), while the second appeal was against the order passed by CIT (A) u/s 154. The tribunal noted that the appeal against the order u/s 154 had become infructuous, leading to its dismissal due to no apparent mistake found. The first M.P. was dismissed accordingly.

2. The second M.P. raised the contention that the reassessment order passed by the AO was bad in law as no separate order was issued to dispose of the objections of the assessee against the validity of reassessment proceedings. The tribunal had restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision, which the assessee claimed was an apparent mistake not in line with specific judgments.

3. The assessee argued that the tribunal order was not in line with the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex court and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. The tribunal had noted that the assessee did not cooperate with the AO in assessment proceedings, leading to an ex parte order u/s 144 of the Act. The tribunal examined the applicability of the cited judgments and found no apparent mistake in its order.

4. The tribunal found that the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court was not a reported judgment, and no citation or copy was provided for examination. Regarding the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court, it was held that the AO must dispose of objections raised by the assessee against reopening by passing a speaking order. The AO had issued notices, but the assessee failed to file a return of income, leading to the tribunal restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh decision.

5. The tribunal concluded that since the AO had provided reasons and disposed of objections within the assessment order, even though not by a separate order, there was no apparent mistake in the tribunal order. Both M.Ps. filed by the assessee were dismissed accordingly.

6. In the final result, both M.Ps. filed by the assessee were dismissed by the tribunal.

---