2022 (3) TMI 729

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'Y') on the ground that the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act is dated 31st March, 2014. The reasons for reopening the assessment came to be supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner objected to those reasons. The order disposing of and rejecting the objections dated 27th January, 2015 (Annexure 'V') was served on the petitioner-assessee on 10th February, 2015. The assessing officer without waiting for the period of four weeks from such service passed an assessment order contrary to the directions of the Division Bench judgment of this Court on 11th February, 2014. Thus, on the date the order dismissing the objection was served on the petitioner, the assessing officer rushed and passed the assessment order on the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case be reopened. Prima facie, it appears that the reopening notice was issued without independent application of mind and/or directions of his superior. In view of the above, the reopening notice dated 31 March 2014 is stayed. 4. We may also point out that, after the order disposing of the objections was passed on 27 January 2015 and served upon the petitioner on 10 February 2015, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 11 February 2015. This action of the Assessing Officer is in defiance of and contrary to the directions of this Court in Asian Paints v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 296 ITR 90 and Aroni Coomercials Ltd. v/s Dy. Commissioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e order dated 5th May, 2015, re-opening notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) has been issued without independent application of mind and purely on directions of Superior Officer, therefore on these grounds the notice dated 31st March, 2014 has to be quashed and set aside. The consequential order dated 27th January, 2015 rejecting objections also has to be quashed and set aside.   6. We also notice that Respondent No.1 has initiated re-assessment proceedings passed only on audit objection raised by the Revenue and to which the then Assessing Officer, i.e., ACIT Bangalore had replied and states in its letter dated 30th March, 2011 and there is no error in the original assessment completed by him and th....