TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows respondents to address objections raised by petitioner, delaying reassessment pending speaking order.</h1> <h3>Teofilo Fernando Antonio Pinto Versus Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance And Anr.</h3> Teofilo Fernando Antonio Pinto Versus Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance And Anr. - TMI Issues:Challenge to impugned notice for reopening assessment for Assessment Year 2015-16.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the notice dated 31.03.2021 seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner applied for reasons for reopening and filed objections following the procedure in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs. ITO 2003 (1) SCC 72. However, before the objections could be disposed of, the respondents issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the I.T. Act on 25.02.2022 to proceed with reassessment, calling for information. The petitioner contended that this procedure was contrary to the law laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. and that there was no case made out for reopening the assessment.The respondents argued that the petition was premature as they were still considering the petitioner's objections and intended to dispose of them by making a speaking order. They stated that until the decision on the objections was communicated to the petitioner, they would not proceed with the reassessment. The court noted that as per GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., the respondents were required to pass a speaking order on the objections raised by the assessee before proceeding with reassessment. Since the respondents were ready to consider the objections and pass a speaking order, the court found no necessity to entertain the petition at that stage.The court allowed the respondents to consider and dispose of the objections raised by the petitioner in accordance with the law by passing a speaking order, which must be communicated to the assessee. If the objections were overruled or rejected, the respondents were directed to refrain from proceeding with the reassessment for four weeks from the date of communication of the speaking order. The court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the contentions raised by either party, leaving all contentions open. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order for costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
