AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 911
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act without any valid reason recorded for the same and merely on the basis of some unestablished information from CIT (A) - 37, Mumbai & thereafter passing a fresh assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the act, ignoring the submission made by the AR of the assessee company in this regard. Thereby such reopening itself is bad-in-law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law the Ld. CJ.T.(A) erred in confirming the decision of the Assessing Officer passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by adding Rs. 5,00,000/-, received by the assessee company towards share capital from M/s.Suryadeep Salt Refinery & Chemical Works ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the outset submits that the objections filed by the Assessee against the reopening of assessment have not been disposed off by the Assessing Officer before passing reassessment order and therefore reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law in view of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of MSPL Gases Ltd. Vs. DCIT in WP No.1269 of 2015 dated 27.01.2016. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee also places reliance on the following decisions and submits that similar view has been taken in these decisions : 1) CIT Vs. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. [94 CCH 30 (Del)] 2) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.415/2015 dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used the orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that the Assessee immediately after receiving the notice u/s 148 for reopening assessment filed letter stating that the return filed u/s 139(1) may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 and also filed objections on 14.05.2010 for reopening the assessment vide letter dated 13.05.2010. The Assessing Officer without disposing off the objections passed reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 30.11.2010 making addition of Rs. 5 lakhs treating the share application money invested by Suryadeep Salt Refinery & Chemical Works Ltd. as undisclosed income of the Assessee. 6. Now the question to be addressed before us is whether the reassessment order passed u/s 143....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iced the orders on reassessment were being passed without disposing of the objections. However, in Court the Revenue accepts the position that the order is not sustainable. We were of the view that if a mechanism could be put in place by the Revenue to recall an order such as this (where even the Revenue concedes that the order dated 3rd February 2015 is without jurisdiction). This for the reason that otherwise Assessees are being unnecessarily harassed and have to move the Court to remedy the injustice to have the order which is ex facie without jurisdiction, set aside. 5. In fact, on 7th December, 2015 the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax along with the Commissioner of Income Tax(Judicial) attended Court and conceded the position t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat we could have set aside the order dated 3rd February 2015 passed on merit being an order without jurisdiction on the first effective hearing itself. This for the reason that it was accepted by the Revenue that the order dated 3rd February 2015 is without jurisdiction. We had adjourned this petition from time to time with the hope that a mechanism would be created by the Revenue to set right an injustice which is not disputed in this case and found also in other cases. We find that no attempt has been made on the part of the officers of the Revenue to try and place some procedure / mechanism in place to cure such admitted injustice. 6. At this stage, the Additional Solicitor General on instructions, states that the Revenue is withdraw....