TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Year 2012-13, date of order 30.01.2026. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19(1), Mumbai (for brevity 'Ld. AO'), order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, date of order 15.12.2019. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return by declaring income Rs. 1,24,07,629/-. The case was re-opened u/s. 147 of the Act and issued the notice u/s. 148 dated 13.03.2019 after recording the reasons and taking prior approval from the authority. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the assessee filed the return on dated 20.03.2019 and declaring total income Rs. 1,24,07,629/-. The assessee filed the objection before the Ld. AO related to the recorded reason s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1 Notice issued under section 148 of the Act 13.03.2019 25 2 Assessee filed the return u/s 148 of the Act 20.03.2019 26 3 Objection against reasons recorded for reopening 30.09.2019 31-36 4 Ld. AO without disposing objection filed by the assessee had directly issued show-cause notice 25.11.2019 44-45 Ld. AR contended that without disposing objection of the assessee, assessment under section 148 of the Act is vitiated entire proceedings. Ld. AR respectfully relied on the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of KSS Petron Private Limited (ITA No. 224 of 2014 order dated 3.10.2016). Relevant paragraph 7 to 9 is reproduced below :- "7. On further Appeal, the Tribunal passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he parliament itself has provided in Section 153(2) of the Act a period of limitation within which the Assessing Officer must pass an order on the notice of re-opening i.e. within one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice was issued. In fact, Section 153 (2A) of the Act as in force at the relevant time itself provides that an order of fresh Assessment, consequent to the order of Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act, would have to be passed within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order under Section 254 of the Act, was passed by the Tribunal and received by the Commissioner of Income Tax." 5. The Ld. AR contended that the identical fact is duly adjudicated by Hon'ble Madras High Court in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed of accordingly. Unfortunately, the manner in which the respondent has decided the issue is wholly unsustainable in law. The purpose for passing a separate speaking order on the objections is with a view to afford an opportunity to the assessee to question such an order, if he is aggrieved. The respondent by passing the impugned order has taken away such valuable right from the petitioner inasmuch as the impugned proceedings is an order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, if an order of assessment has to be challenged, necessarily an appeal has to be preferred and only in rarest of rare case, Courts would entertain challenge to assessment orders in writ proceedings. Thus, the procedure adopted by the respondent is c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts having found that the procedure required to be followed had not been adhered to, it has to be held that the entire proceedings are vitiated." 6. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the revenue authorities. However, the Ld. DR did not controvert the submissions advanced by the Ld. AR by placing any contrary facts or material on record. 7. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record, and carefully considered the judicial precedents relied upon by the parties. The additional grounds raised by the assessee challenge the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO and arise from the facts already available on record. Since no fresh investigation of facts is required, the additional grounds are admitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to challenge the assumption of jurisdiction. The above principle has been further explained by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd.(supra), wherein it was held that failure to comply with the procedure prescribed in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) renders the reassessment order without jurisdiction and that such a defect cannot be cured by restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer, as doing so would amount to granting a licence to ignore the mandatory procedure prescribed by law. The same principle has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Jayanthi Natarajan (supra), wherein it was held that consideration of objections within the assessment order itself or during the reassessment procee....