TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 976
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 3,25,898/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 31-03-2013 further disclosing Capital Gain on sale of land at Gahunj, Pune. In the revised return of income the assessee admitted total income of Rs. 20,46,850/-. The case of the assessee was reopened and first notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was issued to the assessee on 20-03-2015. In response to the aforesaid notice the assessee filed submissions on 21-04-2015 requesting the Assessing Officer to consider the return filed on 31-03-2013 as return in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee vide same communication requested the Assessing Officer to provide the reasons for reopening the assessment. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... as against that of Rs. 240/- per Sq. Mt. claimed by the appellant and thereby making an addition of Rs. 36,81,753/- as additional income from Capital Gains. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal or add to the same, if deemed necessary." Additional ground filed on 20-04-2018 "The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming that reference to Valuation Officer u/s. 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not mandatory and failing which the impugned assessment was valid in eyes of law." Additional ground filed on 20-06-2018 "The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO of relying on an independent Valuation Report in case of some other assessee for the purpose of adopti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or reopening the Assessing Officer proceeded with the assessment and issued notice u/s. 143(2) on 28-10-2015. The assessment order was passed on 18-03-2016 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. reported as 340 ITR 66 has held that where the reasons recorded for reopening are not furnished to the assessee till the completion of assessment, the reassessment order is bad in law. The ld. AR further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of KSS Petron Private Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in Income Tax Appeal No. 224 of 2014 decided on 03-10-2016 to contend that where the assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. (supra) were not complied by the Assessing Officer. 5. Controverting the submissions made on behalf of the Department, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee promptly replied to the first notice dated 20-03-2015 issued u/s. 148 received on 25-03-2015. The assessee made submissions in response to the said notice on 21-04-2015. In so far as the second notice u/s. 148 dated 24-03-2015 is concerned, the Assessing Officer vide subsequent communication dated 17-10-2018 received on 24-10-2018 (at page 20 of the paper book) extended the time to furnish return of income for assessment year 2008-09. The assessee replied to the same on 27-10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad specifically asked for the reasons for reopening vide communication dated 21-04-2015. Again notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 24-03-2015 the assessee vide communication dated 27- 10-2015 asked for the reasons for reopening. However, on both the occasions the Assessing Officer has failed to provide the reasons for reopening to the assessee. 7. The ld. DR has pointed that the assessee has not complied with the notice u/s. 148 as no return of income was filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The return dated 31-03-2013 which the assessee had requested to treat as return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148 was filed beyond the period of one year form the end of the assessment year. Hence, the same is non....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....N Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. (supra) there is no reason to restore the issue to the file of Assessing Officer to pass fresh order. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under : "8 We note that once the impugned order finds the Assessment Order is without jurisdiction as the law laid down by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (supra) has not been followed, then there is no reason to restore the issue to the Assessing Office to pass a further/fresh order. If this is permitted, it would give a licence to the Assessing Officer to pass orders on re-opening notice, without jurisdiction (without compliance of the law in accordance with the procedure, yet the only consequence, would be that in appeal, it ....