9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to notice u/s 158BD of Income-tax Act, 1961 by petitioner, jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner, satisfaction of undisclosed income belonging to petitioner, special procedure of Chapter XIV-B for search cases, protective assessment, correctness of notice u/s 158BD, safeguarding Revenue's interests.
Jurisdiction Issue: Petitioner argued lack of jurisdiction for Assistant Commissioner u/r exhibit R-3(A) notification, stating petitioner's case not connected to husband's assessment. Respondent countered with section 127(3) allowing transfer without opportunity if officers in same place. Notification empowers jurisdiction over connected persons. Assessing Officer proceeded due to undisclosed income in petitioner's bank accounts. Special Procedure Issue: Petitioner contended notice u/s 158BD cannot be issued without objective satisfaction of undisclosed income belonging to her. Referring to husband's assessment order, argued income not hers. Respondent justified assessment against husband, citing protective assessment practice until finality. Referred to Supreme Court decision on double taxation. Assessment and Notice Issue: Petitioner challenged notice u/s 158BD, claiming undisclosed income not hers. Respondent justified satisfaction based on petitioner's bank accounts and husband's failure to explain source. Petitioner failed to provide details, leading to notice issuance. Department safeguarding Revenue's interests due to ongoing appeal by petitioner's husband. Conclusion: Court dismissed original petition, finding no grounds for interference with proceedings u/s 158BD. Upheld Assessing Officer's satisfaction of undisclosed income belonging to petitioner based on bank accounts. Acknowledged Revenue's interest protection due to ongoing appeal by petitioner's husband.
|
