Separate speaking orders on reopening objections are mandatory; deciding them within reassessment invalidates jurisdiction and precludes revival of st...
The HC held that the procedure under Section 144C(1) is mandatory, requiring the assessing officer to send a draft of the proposed assessment order to the petitioner when a prejudicial variation is proposed. The AO's failure to comply was a fatal jurisdictional error. The Court rejected the AO's reliance on Circular No.5/2010, which incorrectly interpreted Section 144C(1), affirming that the Board has no authority to contravene statutory provisions. The petitioner's writ petitions were allowed, as remitting the matter for fresh assessment was impermissible due to the expiration of the limitation period under Section 153. Consequently, the impugned assessments were quashed, and no further proceedings could be initiated.
The HC held that the procedure under Section 144C(1) is mandatory, requiring the assessing officer to send a draft of the proposed assessment order to the petitioner when a prejudicial variation is proposed. The AO's failure to comply was a fatal jurisdictional error. The Court rejected the AO's reliance on Circular No.5/2010, which incorrectly interpreted Section 144C(1), affirming that the Board has no authority to contravene statutory provisions. The petitioner's writ petitions were allowed, as remitting the matter for fresh assessment was impermissible due to the expiration of the limitation period under Section 153. Consequently, the impugned assessments were quashed, and no further proceedings could be initiated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
