Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
[Citation -2015-LL-0507-47]

Citation 2015-LL-0507-47
Appellant Name Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Name Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 07/05/2015
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags initiation of reassessment • reassessment proceedings • reopening of assessment • failure to file return • reassessment order • issuance of notice • reason to believe • reasonable time
Bot Summary: As the objections raised by the petitioner against the reopening of the assessment for AY 2009 10 has not been decided and dealt with by the AO on merits and without considering the objections on merits the AO has disposed of / overruled the said objection, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Article Page 3 of 14 HC-NIC Page 3 of 14 Created On Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/4193/2015 JUDGMENT 226 of the Constitution of India challenging notice under Section 148 of the Act as well as order disposing of the objections against reopening of the assessment for AY 2009 10. As the objections raised by the petitioner against the reopening of the assessment for AY 2007 08 has not been decided and dealt with by the AO on merits and without considering the objections on merits, the AO has disposed of the said objection, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging notice under Section 148 of the Act as well as order disposing of the objections against reopening of the assessment for AY 2007 08. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the impugned orders by the AO disposing of the objections, it appears that the AO has disposed of the said objections without deciding it on merits and solely on the ground that as the assessee has not filed the return pursuant to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act within a period not less than 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. If objections are received by the Assessing Officer from the assessee within the time permitted hereinabove, the Assessing Officer would dispose of the objections, as far as possible, within four months of date of receipt of the objections filed by the assessee. The Division Bench has further observed and directed that once the assessee receives such reasons, he would be expected to raise his objections, if he so desires, within 60 days of receipt of such reasons and if objections are received by the Assessing Officer from the assessee within the time permitted hereinabove, the Assessing Officer would dispose of the objections, as far as possible, within four months of date of receipt of the objections filed by the assessee. On receipt of reasons, the assessee is entitled to file preliminary objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is under a mandate to dispose of such preliminary objections by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the assessment year for which such notice has been issued. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, as the AO has not dealt with and disposed of the objections raised by the assessee against reopening of the assessment on merits meaning thereby has disposed of the objections without considering the objections on merits solely on the ground that assessee has not filed return of income within period not less than 30 days from the date of receipt of notice under Section 1 48 of the Act, impugned orders disposing of the objections are hereby quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded to the AO to consider, decide and dispose of the objections on its own merits and in accordance with law and in light of the observations made herein above.


C/SCA/4193/2015 JUDGMENT IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4193 of 2015 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4194 of 2015 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH sd/ and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA sd/ ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see YES judgment ? 2 To be referred to Reporter or not ? YES 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see fair copy of NO judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves substantial question of law as NO to interpretation of Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ============================================= PUSHPAK BULLION PVT. LTD.....Petitioner(s) Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Respondent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE for Petitioner No. 1 MR NITIN K MEHTA, ADVOCATE for Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA Date : 07/05/2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. As common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2.0. By way of this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, common petitioner assessee has prayed for appropriate Page 1 of 14 HC-NIC Page 1 of 14 Created On Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/4193/2015 JUDGMENT writ, direction and order to quash and set aside impugned notices under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) for AY 2007 08 and 2009 10 as well as respective orders disposing of objections raised against initiation of reassessment proceedings. 2.1. Special Civil Application No.4193 of 2015 has been preferred by petitioner to quash and set aside impugned notice under Section 148 of Act for AY 2009 10 and Special Civil Application No.4194 of 2015 has been preferred by petitioner challenging impugned notice under Section 148 of Act, by which, assessment for AY 2007 08 has been reopened. 2.2. As controversy in both these petitions is in narrow compass, facts necessary for determination of present Special Civil Applications are narrated, which are as under: Special Civil Application No.4193 of 2015 3.0. That petitioner filed return of income for AY 2009 10 at Rs.4,43,44,610/ with its Assessing Officer at Mumbai. That Assessing Officer passed scrutiny assessment order under Section 143(3) of Act on 30th December 2011. That thereafter, AO has issued notices under Sections 148 of Act dated 14.03.2014 and has reopened assessment for AY 2009 10 stating that he has reasoned to believe that income had escaped assessment and asking petitioner to file return within period of 30 days from service of said notice. That thereafter, vide communication dated 08.12.2014 AO called upon petitioner assessee to furnish in writing and verified in prescribed manner information called for as per annexures to Page 2 of 14 HC-NIC Page 2 of 14 Created On Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/4193/2015 JUDGMENT said communication on points or matters specified therein before him at his office on 22.12.2014. That vide communication dated 22.12.2014 petitioner assessee addressed letter requesting AO to consider its revised Section 139 return as one in response to Section 148 notice. That thereafter, petitioner also requested to provide reason for reopening of case if any. That thereafter, vide letter / communication dated 12.1.2015, AO supplied copy of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment for AY 2009 10. That thereafter, petitioner raised objection against reopening of assessment for AY 2009 10 vide his objection dated 16.02.2015. By impugned order dated 27.02.2015, AO has disposed of said objections without dealing anything on merits and solely on ground that petitioner had not filed return of income within period of 30 days from receipt of notice under Section 148 of Act, objections on merits are not required to be dealt with or considered. That AO while disposing of objection has observed that as petitioner assessee has not complied with notice under Section 148 of Act within stipulated time i.e. not within 30 days of receipt of notice under Section 148 of Act, assessee's objections raised against reopening proceedings is not acceptable as case warrants scrutiny on same lines. That while disposing of objections and observing as above, AO has considered and relied upon decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd vs. ACIT reported in (2015)370 ITR (Guj). 3.1. Hence, as objections raised by petitioner against reopening of assessment for AY 2009 10 has not been decided and dealt with by AO on merits and without considering objections on merits AO has disposed of / overruled said objection, petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Article Page 3 of 14 HC-NIC Page 3 of 14 Created On Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/4193/2015 JUDGMENT 226 of Constitution of India challenging notice under Section 148 of Act as well as order disposing of objections against reopening of assessment for AY 2009 10. Special Civil Application No. 4194 of 2015 4.0. That petitioner assessee filed return of income for AY 2007 08 at Rs. 1,32,04,634/ on 15.11.2007. That return was accepted by department under Section 143(1) of Act. That thereafter, AO has issued and served upon impugned notice under Section 148 of Act to petitioner for AY 2007 08 dated 21.03.2014 to reopen assessment for AY 2007 08 stating that he has reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and asking petitioner to file return within period of not less than 30 days. That by communication dated 08.12.2014, AO at Ahmedabad addressed letter to petitioner stating that in response to notice under Section 148 issued by AO at Mumbai, petitioner had not filed return and asked petitioner to file return as early as possible. That petitioner by its letter dated 22.12.2014 requested AO to treat its section 139 return as one in compliance of Section 148 notice. petitioner was requested to supply copy of reasons recorded while reopening assessment for AY 2007 08. That AO by his letter dated 12.01.2015 supplied copy of reasons recorded to petitioner. That petitioner raised objection against reopening of assessment for AY 2007 08 and against reasons recorded, vide objection dated 19.02.2015. Thereafter by impugned order dated 27.02.2015 AO has disposed of said objection without dealing anything on merits and solely on ground that petitioner had not filed return of income within period of 30 days from receipt of notice under Section 148 of Act, objections on merits are not Page 4 of 14 HC-NIC Page 4 of 14 Created On Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/4193/2015 JUDGMENT required to be dealt with or considered. That AO while disposing of objection has observed that as petitioner assessee has not complied with notice under Section 148 of Act within stipulated time i.e. not within 30 days of receipt of notice under Section 148 of Act, assessee's objections raised against reopening proceedings is not acceptable as case warrants scrutiny on same lines. That while disposing of objections and observing as above, AO has considered and relied upon decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd vs. ACIT reported in (2015)370 ITR (Guj). 4.1. Hence, as objections raised by petitioner against reopening of assessment for AY 2007 08 has not been decided and dealt with by AO on merits and without considering objections on merits, AO has disposed of said objection, petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging notice under Section 148 of Act as well as order disposing of objections against reopening of assessment for AY 2007 08. 5.0. Shri J.P. Shah, learned advocate for petitioner assessee has vehemently submitted that AO has materially erred in not considering, deciding and disposing of objection raised by petitioner against reopening of assessment on merits. 5.1. It is vehemently submitted by Shri J.P. Shah, learned advocate for petitioner assessee that AO has materially erred in not disposing of objection on merits solely on ground that petitioner assessee had not filed revised return pursuant to notice under Section 148 of Act within period not less than 30 days Page 5 of 14 HC-NIC Page 5 of 14 Created On Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/4193/2015 JUDGMENT from receipt of notice under Section 148 of Act. It is submitted that by not deciding / disposing of objection on merits on aforesaid ground, AO has misinterpreted directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd (supra). It is vehemently submitted that in aforesaid decision Division Bench has never observed and / or directed that assessee has to file return pursuant to notice under Section 148 of Act within period not less than 30 days from date of receipt of notice under Section 148 of Act and if return pursuant to notice under Section 148 of Act is not filed within period not less than 30 days, AO need not decide / dispose of objections on merits. It is submitted that on contrary in para 14(4) Division Bench has specifically observed that requirement and time frame for supplying reasons without being demanded by assessee would be applicable only if assessee files his return of income within period permitted in notice for reopening and likewise time frame for Assessing Officer to dispose of objections would apply only if assessee raises objections within time provided. It is submitted that Division Bench further clarified this, however, would not mean that if in either case, assessee misses time limit, procedure provided by Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra) would not apply. It is submitted that Division Bench has further observed and clarified that it only means that time frame provided hereinabove would not apply in such cases. 5.2. It is submitted that therefore, AO has materially erred in not disposing of objections on merits and has, as such misinterpreted and misread directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra). Page 6 of 14 HC-NIC Page 6 of 14 Created On Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/4193/2015 JUDGMENT 5.3. It is further submitted by Shri Shah, learned advocate for petitioner assessee that after receipt of reasons recorded for reopening by assessee, once assessee raises objection against reopening and reasons recorded, AO is bound to dispose of same on merits before proceedings further with reassessment proceedings and / or before passing reassessment order. Making above submissions and relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs. Income Tax Officers and Ors reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19 and decision of Full Bench of this Court in case of Garden Finance Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2004) 268 ITR 48 as well as decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Arvind Mills Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax reported in (2004) 141 Taxman 210(Guj), it is requested to allow present Special Civil Applications and grant reliefs as prayed for. 6.0. Shri Nitin Mehta, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of revenue and has tried to support impugned order, by relying upon affidavit in reply. It is vehemently submitted that while disposing of objections raised by assessee against reopening of respective assessments, AO has considered and followed decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd (supra). It is submitted that as for number of months assessee did not respond to notice under Section 148 of Act and did not file any return of income pursuant to notice under Section 148 of Act, AO has rightly disposed of objections by impugned orders. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss present Special Civil Applications. 6.1. At this stage, it is required to be noted that learned Page 7 of 14 HC-NIC Page 7 of 14 Created On Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/4193/2015 JUDGMENT advocates for parties have tried to make submission on merits, however for reasons stated herein after, this Court proposes to remand matters to AO, we deem it proper not to enter into merits and / or observe anything on merits with respect to reopening of respective assessments. 7.0. Having heard learned advocates for respective parties and considering impugned orders by AO disposing of objections, it appears that AO has disposed of said objections without deciding it on merits and solely on ground that as assessee has not filed return pursuant to notice issued under Section 148 of Act within period not less than 30 days from date of receipt of notice under Section 148 of Act. That while disposing of said objections on aforesaid ground, AO has relied upon and considered decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd (supra). However, on considering directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd (supra), it appears that AO has misread and / or misinterpreted directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd (supra). 8.0. In case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd (supra) Division Bench had occasion to consider various difference stages from date of notice under Section 148 of Act to reassessment order and ultimately after considering decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra), in para 14 had issued following directions; 1. Once Assessing Officer serves to assessee notice of reopening of assessment under section 148 of Income Tax Act, Page 8 of 14 HC-NIC Page 8 of 14 Created On Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/4193/2015 JUDGMENT 1961, and within time permitted in such notice, assessee files his return of income in response to such notice, Assessing Officer shall supply reasons recorded by him for issuing such notice within 30 days of filing of return by assessee without waiting for assessee to demand such reasons. 2. Once assessee receives such reasons, he would be expected to raise his objections, if he so desires, within 60 days of receipt of such reasons. 3. If objections are received by Assessing Officer from assessee within time permitted hereinabove, Assessing Officer would dispose of objections, as far as possible, within four months of date of receipt of objections filed by assessee. 4. This is being done in order to ensure that sufficient time is available with Assessing Officer to frame assessment after carrying out proper scrutiny. requirement and time frame for supplying reasons without being demanded by assessee would be applicable only if assessee files his return of income within period permitted in notice for reopening. Likewise time frame for Assessing Officer to dispose of objections would apply only if assessee raises objections within time provided hereinabove. This, however, would not mean that if in either case, assessee misses time limit, procedure provided by Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra) would not apply. It only means that time frame provided hereinabove would not apply in such cases. 5. In communication supplying reasons recorded by Assessing Officer, he shall intimate to assessee that he is expected to raise objections within 60 days of receipt of reasons and shall reproduce directions contained in sub para 1 to 4 hereinabove giving reference to this judgment of High Court. 6.The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Cadre Controlling Authority of Gujarat State, shall issue circular to all Assessing Officers for scrupulously carrying out directions contained in this judgment. 8.1. From aforesaid, it does not appear that any observation has been made by Division Bench and / or any direction is issued by Division Bench that assessee has to file return of income in response to notice under Section 148 of Act within period not less than 30 days. What is observed / directed by Division Bench is that if assessee when files his return of income in response to notice under Page 9 of 14 HC-NIC Page 9 of 14 Created On Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/4193/2015 JUDGMENT Section 148 of Act, AO shall supply reasons recorded by him for issuing such notice within 30 days of filing of return by assessee without waiting for assessee to demand such reasons. Division Bench has further observed and directed that once assessee receives such reasons, he would be expected to raise his objections, if he so desires, within 60 days of receipt of such reasons and if objections are received by Assessing Officer from assessee within time permitted hereinabove, Assessing Officer would dispose of objections, as far as possible, within four months of date of receipt of objections filed by assessee. That Division Bench has also further clarified that requirement and time frame for supplying reasons without being demanded by assessee would be applicable only if assessee files his return of income within period permitted in notice for reopening and likewise time frame for Assessing Officer to dispose of objections would apply only if assessee raises objections within time provided hereinabove. Division Bench has also further observed and clarified that this however, would not mean that if in either case, assessee misses time limit, procedure provided by Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra) would not apply and it only means that time frame provided hereinabove would not apply in such cases. Meaning thereby, aforesaid time limit shall be strictly adhered to by AO to supply reasons recorded; by assessee to file objections, if he so desire within 60 days and by AO to dispose of objections within four months. As further clarified even in case assessee misses time limit, procedure provided by Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra) shall be followed. It is true that on receipt of notice under Section 148 of Act, assessee is required to file return within time prescribed in such notice and / or within reasonable time and simultaneously asked for reasons recorded for Page 10 of 14 HC-NIC Page 10 of 14 Created On Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/4193/2015 JUDGMENT reopening and AO is bound to dispose of such objections within time provided by Division Bench in case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd (supra), however in any case before order of assessment under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of Act. However, at this stage also, AO must give reasonable time to assessee to challenge order disposing of objection by way of petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 8.2. In case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down elaborate procedure as to manner of dealing with objections raised against notice under Section 148 of Act in following words: ...However, we clarify that when notice under section 148 of Income tax Act is issued, proper course of action for notice is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons within reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, notice is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of same by passing speaking order. In instance case, as reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, Assessing Officer has to dispose of objections, if filed, by passing speaking order, before proceeding with assessment in respect of abovesaid five assessment years. 8.3. In subsequent decision in case of Garden Finance Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT reported in (2004) 268 ITR 48 (Guj.) (FB), effect of Supreme Court decision in case of G.K.N. Driveshaft (India) Ltd. (Supra) came up for consideration and by majority opinion it has been thus laid down by this Court as under: What Supreme Court has now done in G.K.N. Case (2003)259 ITR 19 is not to whittle down principle laid down by Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. case (1961) 41 ITR 191 but to require assessee first to lodge preliminary objection before Assessing Officer who is bound to decide preliminary objections to issuance of re assessment notice by passing speaking order and, therefore, if such order on preliminary objections is still against assessee, assessee will get Page 11 of 14 HC-NIC Page 11 of 14 Created On Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/4193/2015 JUDGMENT opportunity to challenge same by filing writ petition so that he does not have to wait till completion of re assessment proceedings which would have entailed liability to pay tax and interest on re assessment and also to go through gamut of appeal, second appeal before Income tax Appellate Tribunal and then reference / tax appeal to High Court. Viewed in this light, it appears to me that rigour of availing of alternative remedy before Assessing Officer for objecting to re assessment notice under section 148 has been considerably softened by Apex Court in G.K.N. case (2003) 259 ITR 19 in year 2003. In my view, therefore, G.K.N. case (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) does not run counter to Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. case (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) but it merely provides for challenge to re assessment notice in two stages, that is, i) raising preliminary objections before Assessing Officer and in case of failure before Assessing Officer, ii) challenging speaking order of Assessing Officer under section 148 of Act (p.87). 8.4. Thereafter, in case of Arvind Mills Ltd. (Supra), Division Bench of this Court had opportunity to consider aforesaid two decisions and after considering both aforesaid decisions, in para 9 Division Bench has observed and held as under: 9. position in law is thus well settled. After notice for re assessment has been issued assessee is required to file return and seek reasons for issuance of such notice. Assessing Officer is then bound to supply reasons within reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, assessee is entitled to file preliminary objections to issuance of notice and Assessing Officer is under mandate to dispose of such preliminary objections by passing speaking order, before proceeding with assessment in respect of assessment year for which such notice has been issued. 8.5. Thus, considering aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra) and decision of Full Bench of this Court in case of Garden Finance Limited (supra) and decision in case of Arvind Mills Ltd. (Supra) and decision of Division Bench in case of Page 12 of 14 HC-NIC Page 12 of 14 Created On Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/4193/2015 JUDGMENT Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd (supra) impugned orders disposing of objections without deciding objections on merits cannot be sustained and same deserve to be quashed and set aside. impugned orders passed by AO disposing of objections are absolutely on misinterpretation and / or misreading of decision of Division Bench in case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd (supra). As observed herein above in case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd (supra) Division Bench has never provided / prescribed/ stipulated any time limit for assessee to file return of income pursuant to notice under Section 148 of Act, more particularly within period not less than 30 days and failure to file return of income within period not not less than 30 days, AO need not decide objections on merits. Such interpretation by AO is absolutely on misinterpretation and / or on misread of decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd (supra). As observed herein above, it is true that on receipt of notice under Section 148 of Act, assessee is required to file return of income pursuant to notice under Section 148 of Act within time prescribed in notice and / or within extended period and / or within reasonable period and assessee may in given case request AO to treat original return as return of income pursuant to notice under Section 148 of Act and simultaneously may request for reasons recorded and on receipt of reasons recorded, assessee is required to raise objection, if he so desires, within reasonable time and thereafter AO is bound to decide objection on merits and decide and dispose of objections within reasonable time, more particularly, within time prescribed / directed by Division Bench in case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd (supra) and communicate decision disposing of objections at earliest, however before finalizing assessment under Section 143(3) of Act r/w Section Page 13 of 14 HC-NIC Page 13 of 14 Created On Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 IST 2016 C/SCA/4193/2015 JUDGMENT 147 of Act, however after giving reasonable time to assessee to challenge decision / order disposing of objections. 9.0. In view of above and for reasons stated above, as AO has not dealt with and disposed of objections raised by assessee against reopening of assessment on merits meaning thereby has disposed of objections without considering objections on merits solely on ground that assessee has not filed return of income within period not less than 30 days from date of receipt of notice under Section 1 48 of Act, impugned orders disposing of objections are hereby quashed and set aside and matters are remanded to AO to consider, decide and dispose of objections on its own merits and in accordance with law and in light of observations made herein above. aforesaid exercise shall be completed by AO within period of two months from date of receipt of writ of present order. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits with respect to legality and validity of notice under Section 148 of Act or even with respect to objections raised against reopening of assessment for respective assessment years. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent in each of petitions. No costs. sd/ (M.R.SHAH, J.) sd/ (S.H.VORA, J.) Kaushik Page 14 of 14 HC-NIC Page 14 of 14 Created On Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 IST 2016 Pushpak Bullion Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Report Error