AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 263 of the Act. 3. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had furnished return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,99,07,894/-. The assessment in the case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on total assessed income of Rs. 7,01,62,300/-. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s. Praj Industries Ltd., Pune and its associated concern and directors. During the course of search, certain incriminating documents were found from the office cabin of one Mr. Anirudhha Phadke. When he was confronted, it transpired that the company had given accommodation entries for inflation of the expenses to its clients. As per the details available, the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat vide letter dated 07-04-2014, the assessee had insisted for supply of reasons for reopening the assessment in response to the notice issued under section 148 dated 07-03-2014. The Commissioner noted that, in reply, the assessee had submitted "since the system is not allowing us to file the revised e-return, we request you to treat the return of income already filed for the above assessment year as filed in response to the above notice". The Commissioner observed that the Assessing Officer did not furnish the reasons and issued notice under section 142(1) dated 17-12-2014 calling for return by 07-01-2015 and communicated the reasons on which addition was proposed. However, the assessee did not attend in response and the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....part of the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order dealing with the objections of the assessee to the re- opening proceedings was required. Hence, it requires intervention of the Commissioner as necessary under section 263 of the Act as the order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Consequently, show cause notice under section 263 was issued. The assessee filed a reply to the same. However, in view of the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. VSNL (supra) and CIT Vs. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. (supra), the Commissioner holds that the re-assessment order passed was not legally sustainable and was liable to be quashed. Hence, it became necessary to annul it under section 263 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d reliance on order of Commissioner. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises in the present appeal is that where the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is admittedly void, can there be any exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act against such void order which infact did not exist in law. As referred in the facts narrated above, the original assessment in the case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 26-03-2013. During the course of search on M/s. Praj Industries Ltd., certain documents were found relating to assessee and the reasons were recorded for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act against the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jections are to be disposed off by separate speaking order. The Assessing Officer is to provide sufficient time to the assessee to seek remedy against such dismissal of the objections raised against the reopening of the assessment. Thereafter, the assessment order has to be passed in the hands of the assessee. The Assessing Officer in the present set of facts has not followed the said procedure but has disposed of the objections raised by the assessee against the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, in the assessment order itself. Such inaction of the Assessing Officer makes the assessment order void and not sustainable in law. When the assessment order is void and did not exist in law, the question which arises is whether the Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in respect of such null and void assessment order. Relevant findings are in Para No.19 which reads as under : "19. Now, coming to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. In case where the assessment order, which is the basis of initiating penalty proceedings for concealment is null and void, then the Commissioner cannot exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in respect of such null and void assessment order. The Commissioner in the present case has though exercised his jurisdiction in respect of the order dropping penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)of the Act. However, where the Assessing Officer had not initiated the penalty proceed....