Judicial discipline requires consistent reassessment treatment where identical facts were decided for the same taxpayer in the preceding assessment ye...
Separate speaking orders on reopening objections are mandatory; deciding them within reassessment invalidates jurisdiction and precludes revival of stale proceedings.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Reassessment proceedings alleging bogus purchases require the Assessing Officer to decide objections to reopening through a separate speaking order and communicate it before completing reassessment. Incorporating the response to those objections only in the reassessment order does not satisfy this mandatory procedure and makes the assumption of jurisdiction unsustainable. Reassessments for the relevant assessment years were therefore quashed, while challenges to the alleged bogus-purchase additions became infructuous. Remand was declined because restoring jurisdictionally invalid proceedings would revive stale matters; the Revenue may proceed in accordance with law.
Reassessment proceedings alleging bogus purchases require the Assessing Officer to decide objections to reopening through a separate speaking order and communicate it before completing reassessment. Incorporating the response to those objections only in the reassessment order does not satisfy this mandatory procedure and makes the assumption of jurisdiction unsustainable. Reassessments for the relevant assessment years were therefore quashed, while challenges to the alleged bogus-purchase additions became infructuous. Remand was declined because restoring jurisdictionally invalid proceedings would revive stale matters; the Revenue may proceed in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4886 
