TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of both the respondents are before this virtual Court. Owing to the short point that is being canvassed in the captioned matter, main writ petition was taken up with the consent of both sides. 2. In the light of short point that is being canvassed factual matrix in a nutshell containing the facts that are imperative for appreciating this order will suffice. Such factual matrix is that the captioned matter pertains to an assessment made under the 'Income Tax Act, 1961' (hereinafter 'IT Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity) qua 'Assessment Year 2008-2009' (hereinafter 'said AY' for the sake of convenience and clarity); that there was search proceedings under Section 153C of IT Act; that an assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he sake of convenience and clarity); that thereafter a show cause notice (SCN) dated 16.12.2021 together with a draft assessment order came to be issued and this has led to an assessment order 'dated 20.12.2021 bearing reference DIN in Order No.ITBA/AST/S/ 147/2021-22/ 1037961473(1)' (hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity). 3. In the hearing before this Court today, notwithstanding very many averments made in the writ affidavit and notwithstanding several grounds raised in the writ affidavit, the matter was argued on one point and that one point is GKN principle [GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer and others] has not been followed post aforementioned orders of this Court.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to capital gains tax under Section 45 of IT Act. The issue is nothing more nothing less. 5. This Court now reverts to the GKN Driveshafts principle. From the narrative thus far which also captures the trajectory the matter has taken, it will be clear that after the orders of Hon'ble Single Judge and the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the Department had issued a notice dated 12.11.2021 under Section 142(1) of IT Act and the writ petitioner has sent objections dated 23.11.2021, which is being referred to as said objections. If GKN Driveshafts principle is to be followed, the Assessing Officer should have considered this objections and made an order which has now come to stay in litigation parlance as 'spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduce the orders of Hon'ble Single Judge and the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench in writ petitioner's earlier challenge to 31.03.2015 notice under Section 148 of IT Act. The reason is the order of the Single Judge has been placed before this Court as part of the case file but the intra Court appeal has not been mentioned and the order of the Division Bench has not been placed before this Court. It was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Revenue Counsel. For convenience and ease of reference, both the orders i.e., order of the Hon'ble Singe Judge and the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench are reproduced infra one after other. 8. Order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 18.03.2021 is as follows: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent and to quash the same. 3.On a perusal of the order impugned in the Writ Appeal, it could be seen that the same is a consent order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4.When the Writ Petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, the petitioner's counsel submitted that all the contentions of the petitioner may be left open and that the petitioner has already given her reply to the second respondent for the notices issued to her. The learned Single Judge directed the second respondent to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge also made it clear that all the contentions of the writ petitioner are left open. ....