TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the assessment year 2007-2008 (in CWP No.5872 of 2018) (Annexure P-1) and has further put to challenge the assessment orders dated 14.02.2018 (Annexure P-17), so also notices dated 14.02.2018 under Section 156 of the I.T. Act and under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the I.T. Act (Annexures P-18 and P-19), for the assessment year 2006-2007 (in CWP No.5813 of 2018) and for the assessment year 2007-2008 (in CWP No.5872 of 2018) respectively. FACTS 2. The petitioner had filed return on 02.11.2006 for the assessment year 2006-2007 declaring income of Rs. 2,15,250/- and filed return on 13.10.2018 for the assessment year 2007-2008 declaring income of Rs. 2,89,914/-. The returns were processed under Section 143(1) of the I.T. Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....invited attention of the Department that the trust deed at Sr. No.13 was a typed copy of deed bearing no signatures and none of the documents had any sanctity in law they not being authenticated or certified by the legal keeper thereof, as contemplated by law and therefore, the revenue should supply legal documents to enable the petitioner to file objections to the proceedings. Still without complying with the said legal demand, a notice dated 16.12.2016 was issued to him as to why the assessment should not be finalized by 20.12.2016. 3. On 20.12.2016, the petitioner repeated his request and reiterated his stand that the notices and the documents, i.e. authenticated were not received by the petitioner and would definitely file his returns/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he writ petitions, Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed his objections on 13.02.2018 which is not in dispute. She submitted that after receipt of the objections, the same are mandatorily required to be considered and a 'speaking order' is required to be made and served on the petitioner. Upon such 'speaking order' being made, the petitioner would be entitled to take up his legal remedies. The petitioner is also entitled to raise the plea of limitation which is the legal plea. However, the revenue passed the impugned order making assessment on the next day, i.e. 14.02.2018. The reason for not adjudicating on the objection is unwarranted. She, therefore, prayed for allo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondents-Income Tax Department fairly stated that the adjudication on the objections filed by the petitioner on 13.02.2018 should have been made as the same is mandatory. The various averments in the petition made by the petitioner about non-service of notice under Section 148 dated 23.03.2016, notice under Section 142 (1) dated 25.07.2016 and 07.11.2016 are not required to be considered for the simple reason that the counsel for the revenue has agreed that the objections having been filed on 13.02.2018 should have been decided. In other words, with this premise, whether notices were served on the petitioner nor not, loses significance. The ultimate object of service of notice on the petitioner was to give him an opportunity to file t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceedings and that is why the authority thought it not feasible to pass separate orders on the objections raised. The counsel for the petitioner has seriously disputed that the petitioner caused any delay. We are unable to agree with the reason given by the authority since the objections ought to have been decided, as fairly stated by the counsel for the revenue. 11. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the revenue that the revenue should be allowed to decide the objections now and the impugned orders should not be quashed, is having no force because as a sequel the impugned orders become illegal and will have to be quashed. 12. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the revenue is that the revenue should be ....