2014 (10) TMI 623

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arch 2013; and (c) the Assessment order dated 29 March 2014 passed by the Assessing Officer. 2. Mr. Rai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners points out that the petitioners have preferred an appeal on 25 April 2014 against the order of the Assessing Officer dated 29 March 2014 to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(CIT-A). However, he submits that the facts in this case are so gross, that this court should entertain this petition. In particular, he points out to the following sequence of events:- (a) On receipt of the impugned notice dated 12 March 2013 under Section 148 of the Act, the petitioner on 20 March 2013 sought reasons for issuing of the impugned notice; (b) On 8 January 2014 the reasons were furnished by the As....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Assessing Officer was informed of the same on 25 March 2014; (j) On 29 March 2014 the Assessing officer passed an Assessment order for Assessment year 2007-08; and (k) On 25 April 2014 the petitioner filed an appeal to the CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 29 March 2014. On the basis of the above facts, it is submitted that there was gross delay on the part of the Assessing officer in giving reasons seeking to reopen the assessment and also in disposing of the objections to the reasons filed by the petitioner. It was only on account of the delay on the part of the Assessing officer in furnishing the reasons a situation arose which forced the Assessing Officer to complete the reassessment proceedings before 31 March 2014 otherwis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y invoked an efficacious alternative of filing an appeal to CIT(A) raising all the issues including the issue of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for Assessment year 2007-08.We see no reason to conclude that the petitioner would not get justice at the hands of CIT(A). 5. However, we are constrained to make a few observations with regard to the conduct of the Assessing Officer in these proceedings which leaves much to be desired. The impugned notice for reopening of assessment was served upon the petitioner on 12 March 2013 and the petitioner on 20 March 2013 asked for the reasons which are already recorded as a condition precedent to issuing the impugned notice. The reasons were available with the Assessing officer on 12 March 2013 it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (I) Ltd. v/s. I.T.O. 259 ITR 19 was only to ensure that the reassessment proceedings are not taken by the Assessing Officer without satisfaction of the preconditions of Sections 147 and 148 of the Act as a safeguard against harassment. One more result of this self inflicted delay on the part of the Assessing officer in dealing with the jurisdictional issues, was the tearing hurry in which he is to complete the process of reassessment and pass an order. This hurry in passing Assessment order could lead to injustice not only to the assessee but also to the Revenue as it is likely the proper consideration would not be given to the issues involved. We trust that the Revenue would ensure that....