2014 (11) TMI 1004

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot upholding the assessee's claim that the impugned reassessment order dated 20.11.2009 deserved to be quashed as it was not in accordance with law. 2. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) should have held that in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the case only two specific items were considered as probable escaped incomes but none of them viz. Rs. 6,73,887 and Rs. 6,08,133 was considered wholly or partly as escaped income even in the impugned reassessment order and hence on the basis of those reasons recorded it was not possible to frame any reassessment order which would be valid in the eye of law. 3. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) should have held that when none of the aforesaid two specific items ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant craves to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing the appeal. 3. The AR the of the assessee, while arguing ground No.1 of the appeal, submitted that the assessee has raised objections to the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act vide letter dated 11.11.2009 which was received in the office of the Assessing officer on 16.11.2009. He has placed a copy of the said letter on record. He further submitted that the impugned order was passed without disposing off the objections of the assessee separately and without waiting for reasonable time before passing the impugned re-assessment order and therefore, the re-assessment order is liable to be quashed. The AR of the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee after communicating the fate of the objections before proceeding with the reassessment. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India P. Ltd v. DCIT (supra) has held as under:- "From the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable where no order has been passed by the Assessing Officer deciding the objection filed by the assessee under section 148 of the Act and assessment order has been passed or the order deciding an objection under section 148 of the Act has not been communicated to the assessee and assessment order has been passed or the objection filed under section 148 has been decided along with the ....