TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y passing a speaking order has vitiated the proceedings and rendered it liable to be quashed since the reasons for re-opening the case u/s. 148 were based on proper reasoning and adequate facts. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 718.49 Lakhs by observing that "The sponsor society is also a society registered u/s.12 AA of the I. T. Act, 1961. Donations by one society to another having similar objects are considered a legitimate application of income by a charitable society. Even if we view the sponsor society, especially in view of the facts that is has an objective of imparting higher education and is creating infrastructural facilities for the same for use of the University." 3. Fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Court, and the self evident fact of the A. O. not passing any speaking order in disposing the assessee's objections against the notice u/s 148, it is held that the subsequent assessment order is bad in law and deserving of being quashed." 9. Before us the DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in writ petition No.1019 of 2017. It is the say of the DR that the SLP filed by the assessee in this case has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The DR supplied the copies of the order. 10. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and then reference/tax appeal to the High Court. "Viewed in this light, it appears to me that the rigour of availing of the alternative remedy before the Assessing Officer for objecting to the reassessment notice under section 148 has been considerably softened by the apex court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.'s case [2003] 259 ITR 19 in the year 2003. In my view, therefore, the GKN Drivesharfts (India) Ltd. 's case [2003] 259 ITR 19 does not run counter to the Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. case [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) but it merely provides for challenge to the reassessment notice in two stages, that is, (i) Raising preliminary objections before the Assessing Officer and in case of failure before the Assessing Officer; (ii) Challenging t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....discussed here in above. 14. We find that the CIT(A) has rightly considered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court Gujarat, therefore, no interference is called for. Ground No.1 is accordingly dismissed. 15. Coming to ground No.2, facts on record show that the facts of the case are that the Uttaranchal legislature passed an Act called the ICFAI University Act, 2003, permitting ICFAI to set up a University in Uttaranchal. As per this act all the movable, and immovable properties acquired, created, arranged or built by the University for the purpose of the University in the state of Uttaranchal would vest in the University and would not be used for any other purpose other than the purpose for which it was acquired....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,57,750/- and this expenditure has been reimbursed to the society by the University out of its development fund. Furthermore, as the society had invested a sum of Rs. 5.17 crores out of its own funds in the setting up of the University upto 31.3.2008, this entire amount has been refunded to the society by the University during the course of the year. The University had held that this repayment to the society is solely on account of the properties which are in its de facto control/ownership and de jure title of which would pass to the society as per the MoU, on payment of the remaining outstanding liability. 16. The bone of contention is that the claim of the payment of Rs. 71848612/- transferred to the ICFAI University, Hyderabad by the ....