TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....61 2. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, withdraw and/or modify any one/more or all the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of final hearing 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming validity of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad in law and required to be quashed 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that permission obtained under section 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not in accordance with law, as permission is given by PCIT in mechanical manner and on wrong fact. Therefore, resultant proceedings u/s 148 are also bad in law and require to be quashed 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that assessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed without disposing objection raised against reason recorded for reopening is bad in law and required to be quash 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that addition of Rs. 209,25,755 made under section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by Ld. AO on assumption that appellant had transaction with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r that assessment order passed without considering the reply of appellant is against the principal of opportunity of being heard and makes order null and void. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming charging of Interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming invocation of penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, withdraw and/or modify any one/more or all the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of final hearing." 4. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income for AY.2014-15 on 17.10.2014, declaring total income of Rs. 4,67,100/-. The assessee was carrying on the business of dealing in diamond under the name and style of M/s Vaibhav Laxmi Impex. The case was selected for scrutiny and order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 14.12.2016 determining total income of Rs. 5,42,660/-. Subsequently, on the basis of information available in the Insight portal of the department that assessee had carrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in case of Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Limited vs. DCIT, (2025) 171 taxmann.com 800 (Bom.) and the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in case of M.R. Diaglobe vs. DCIT, in ITA No. 6725/Mum/2024 7. On the preliminary issue, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue relied on the assessment orders and submitted that the objection has been considered and decided in the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022 by the AO. He also submitted that CIT(A) has also dismissed the objection of the assessee regarding validity of re-opening u/s 147 of the Act. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions relied upon by the parties. The facts in brief may be recapitulated because such facts are relevant to decide the preliminary issue raised by the ld. AR. In response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 31.03.2021, return of income was filed on 27.04.2021. The AO provided the reasons for re-opening on 15.01.2022. The objection of the assessee is at pages 33 to 42 of the paper book. The appellant had stated that the information....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Upon receiving the reasons, the assessee Filed objections on 31.07.2023 in accordance with the ruling in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (supra). However, the Ld. AO proceeded with the reassessment without separately disposing of the assessee's objections, thereby contravening the established legal procedure. Aggrieved, the assessee raised this issue before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, ruled against the assessee, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 371 (Madras). In this judgment, the Madras High Court held that while an Assessing Officer is required to dispose of objections raised against a notice issued under Section 148 by passing a reasoned order, failure to do so does not render the reassessment order void ab initio. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against this decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel (supra), wherein a similar view was taken, aligning with th....