2022 (1) TMI 183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. One of the principal grounds on which the impugned reassessment order has been challenged is that the mandatory requirement of dealing with the objections raised by the Assessee for reopening of the assessment as spelt out by the Supreme Court of India in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) has not been followed. 3. The second ground of challenge is that the documents on the basis of which the ITO formed the reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for the AY in question were not supplied to the Petitioner. 4. Thirdly, during the re-assessment proceedings, the Petitioner made a written request for cross-examination of the persons on the basis of whose statements the reopening was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessment order itself notes that in response to the notice issued under Section 147 of the Act, the Assessee on 30th June 2016 submitted objections to the reopening of the assessment. Admittedly, the said objections were not separately dealt with by the Assessing Officer (AO) as mandatorily required by the judgment of Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra). On that short ground, the reopening of the assessment is rendered bad in law and the impugned reassessment order deserves to be set aside. 9. Further, it is seen that the reasons for reopening of the assessment merely repeats the language of the report of the DDIT (Inv.) without any independent application of mind by the AO. In Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. Asst. Commis....