TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 955
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing Grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by upholding the reopening of the appellant's case u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ("The Act"). 2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the AO's order u/s 143(3) r.w s 147 dated 25.03.2016 despite the fact that the Assessing officer has not communicated the reasons recorded for reopening the case, to the appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not applying the tests of natural justice as the assessee was not provided any opportunity of being heard during the remand proceedings, either by the CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....008 declaring an income of Rs. 1,34,199/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons and reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 28/03/2004. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, assessee vide communication dated 04/04/2014 stated that the return of income filed originally dated 31/03/2008 may be treated as return filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. In the ensuing reassessment, the total income has been assessed at Rs. 38,34,200/-, which inter-alia, includes an addition of Rs. 37.00 lacs under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. The said addition has since been affirmed by C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee. In this context, the Ld. Representative for the assessee referred to the remand report of the Assessing Officer dated 26/09/2016, addressed to the CIT(A), wherein although it is asserted that the reasons have been furnished to the assessee vide letter dated 01/08/2014, but there was no proof of service on the assessee. The Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that in the absence of any evidence of the reasons having been furnished to the assessee, the CIT(A) ought to have held that the reasons have not been furnished and, therefore, the assessment ought to have been treated as bad in law. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative pointed out that the CIT(A) noticed that only one communication was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Thus in the absence of reasons being furnished, when sought for would make an order passed on reassessment bad in law. The recording of reasons (which has been done in this case) and furnishing of the same has to be strictly complied with as it is a jurisdictional issue. This requirement is very salutary as it not only ensures reopening notices are not lightly issued. Besides in case the same have been issued on some misunderstanding/ misconception, the assessee is given an opportunity to point out that the reasons to believe as recorded in the reasons do not warrant reopening before the reassessment proceedings are commenced. The Assessing Officer disposes of these objections and if satisfied with the objections, then the impugned reopen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt of the reasons. Also, the assessee did never raise any objection till the completion of the assessment order. In this regard reliance is placed on the provisions of section 292BB of the Income Tax Act,1961." The report of the Assessing Officer is quite clear that it acknowledges that there is no proof of service of furnishing of reasons to the assessee. Apart therefrom, the Ld.Representative for the assessee also referred to reply received from the Department to an information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 04/05/2017, which is as under:- " The applicant, Smt. Manju Pravinchand Jain has made request u/s. 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide appli....