{"id":22128,"date":"2021-10-05T18:01:58","date_gmt":"2021-10-05T12:31:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/viresh-hemani-v-ito-2021-435-itr-376-orissahc\/"},"modified":"2021-10-05T18:01:58","modified_gmt":"2021-10-05T12:31:58","slug":"viresh-hemani-v-ito-2021-435-itr-376-orissahc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/viresh-hemani-v-ito-2021-435-itr-376-orissahc\/","title":{"rendered":"Viresh Hemani v. ITO (2021) 435 ITR 376 (Orissa)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Allowing the petition the Court held that the mandatory requirement that the-assessee\u2019s objections raised for reopening of the assessment should be disposed of by the Assessing Officer by a speaking order was not complied with. The reassessment proceeding under section\u00a0147\u00a0was vitiated on this ground alone. The letter of approval under section\u00a0151\u00a0for the issuance of notice under section\u00a0148\u00a0issued by the Joint Commissioner to the ITO simply stated that \u201capproval is hereby accorded under section\u00a0151(2)\u00a0for initiation of proceeding under section\u00a0147\u201d. There was no indication of any application of mind by the authority. The approval accorded under section\u00a0151\u00a0had to be granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner, or the Chief Commissioner, or the Principal Commissioner, or the Commissioner, if the reopening is beyond four years. However, the approval was issued by the Joint Commissioner and therefore, it was not valid. (AY. 2007-08)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Objections not been disposed of-Invalid approval-Approval of Joint Commissioner instead of Principal Chief Commissioner-Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 148, 151,  Art. 226] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-5KU","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22128","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22128"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22128\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22129,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22128\/revisions\/22129"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22128"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22128"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22128"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}