TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act at an income of Rs. 9,59,516/- as against returned income of Rs. 4,43,410/-. 2 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the initiation proceedings under section 147 of the Act and, further completion of assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act without satisfying the statutory pre-conditions for initiation of the proceedings and, completion of assessment under the Act. 2.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has otherwise also failed to appreciate that, there was no material on record on the basis of which it could be held that, there was "reason to believe" that income of the appellant company had escaped assessment and, in view thereof the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ased their decision on suspicion and surmises without conducting any enquiry of their own or rebutting the documents so tendered by assessee :- appellant, even no opportunity to cross - examine the alleged entry operator was provided to the assessee - appellant and as such, the addition needs to be deleted. 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further grossly erred in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of Rs. 17,456/- on account of commission paid, which addition is merely based on conjectures, surmises and suspicion." 2. The brief facts of the case are that information has been received from the office of the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-VI(2), E-2, 2nd floor, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi that the assessee i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....40 PM. Copy of the speed post tract result of acknowledgement no. ED8804605351N is enclosed herewith. As the notice has been issued after the expiry of time limit prescribed in section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the issue of notice is time barred." AO held that this contention of the assessee is not acceptable because the notice was dispatched on 30.3.2013 which was served. Accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) on 23.7.2013 issued and served upon the assessee. During the assessment proceedings the assessee has not filed any return in response to the notice u/s. 148 despite several opportunity, therefore, the original return filed by the assessee was treated and in response the A.R. of the assessee attended the proceedings and has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,59,516/- u/s. 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 27.3.2014. 3. Against the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 30.1.2017 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the legal ground and on other ground on merits as well. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. During the hearing, learned counsel of assessee Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Advocate, appeared and argued that non disposal of objections through a separate speaking order is an illegality in law and is against the mandate of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts vs ITO reported in 259 ITR 19 and for the aforesaid proposition he sought relianc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITO vs M/s M.L. Creations has quashed the reopening of assessee on account of non disposal of objections by AO and in the process the ITAT has considered all the judgments so cited by the learned counsel of assessee. The relevant findings recorded by ITAT in the aforesaid case is as under: "6.1 On going through the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the legal issue. I find that Ld. ClT(A) by respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. 259 ITR 19 (SC) and further following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. vs. ACWT (2004) 270 ITR 469 (Guj.) and has rightly observed that AO has not passed the speaking order in dispos....