2023 (12) TMI 1131

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t without supplying the reasons pursuant to notice under Section 148 of the Act despite request by the petitioner to furnish reasons for reopening which has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be mandatory, thereby vitiating, the impugned order of assessment. 2. The petitioner is in the business of preparation of engineering drawings for overseas Engineering Construction Companies. For the assessment year 2016-17, the petitioner filed its original return of income on 29.11.2016 admitting a total income of Rs. 1,49,37,270/-. The petitioner's case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the "large deduction of claim under Section 35(1)" of the Act. Accordingly, a notice dated 06.07.2017 was issued to the petitioner under Se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rated and sent to the petitioner only at 8.16 p.m. on 28.09.2021. The petitioner was also served with the notice in sub-section(1) of Section 142 of the Act on the very same day i.e., 28.09.2021 calling upon the petitioner to furnish documents / details set out in the Annexure in the said notice. The above notice was apparently sent at 8.12 p.m. on 28.09.2021 while calling upon the petitioners to furnish the above details / information / documents at 11.00 a.m. on the following day i.e., 29.09.2021. 5. Now coming back to the non-furnishing of reasons for reassessment, it is relevant to note that the Respondent had not furnished reasons for reopening till date. The petitioner would thus submit that it was completely unaware as to reason for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... after referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO [(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)], it was held that non-furnishing of reasons would cause serious prejudice and would vitiate the proceedings, resultantly the impugned proceeding was quashed. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: "16. Thus, considering the factual position in the instant case and having noted that the assessee, at the first instance, sought for furnishing the reasons for reopening, would clearly show that non-furnishing of reasons has put him to prejudice. As noted above, the Revenue could not produce any evidence to show that the reasons recorded were provided to the assessee in spite of opp....