S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Subsidy-Provision for expenses-Query raised during assessment proceedings-Reply filed-It is not necessary that the assessment order should contain reference or discussion in the assessment order-Order was quashed-Court observed that the order of disposal of objections in to 21 pages and referring 68 case laws without referring the issue under consideration-Faceless Assessing Officer has only wasted his time in writing unsustainable order on objections. [S. 4, 37(1), 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

The assessment of the petitioner was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings specific question was raised as regards taxability of the subsidy and provision for expenses. After considering the reply the Assessing Officer has accepted the contention of the petitioner and partly disallowed the provision for expenses. Against the order of the Assessing Officer the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) which is pending for disposal . After the expiry of four years the Assessing Officer issued the notice for reassessment and in the recorded reasons the Assessing Officer proposed to make addition as regards the subsidy and provision for expenses. The petitioner has filed detailed reply objecting to proposed reassessment, however the assessing Officer rejected the objection without discussing any of the contention of the petitioner. In the rejection order the Assessing Officer quoted 68 case laws. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that, it is not necessary that the assessment order should contain reference or discussion in the assessment order. Court also observed that the order of disposal of objections in to 21 pages and referring 68 case laws without referring the issue under consideration the Faceless Assessing Officer has only wasted his time in writing unsustainable order on objections . The order was quashed. (WP (L) No. 6861 of 2022 dt. 9-3-2022) (AY. 2015-16)

Hitech Corporation Ltd. (Formerly Known as Hitesh Plast Ltd.) v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC) www.itatonline.org.
[CORAM : JUSTICE SHRI K.R. SHRIRAM & JUSTICE SHRI N.J. JAMADAR]