2022 (4) TMI 1190 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of national faceless assessment u/s 144B - Petitioner states that the entire proceeding is based on the report of the Resolution Professional filed in NCLT, wherein it is wrongfully alleged that the Petitioner had received from 636 investors in M/s Aurochem Buildprop Private Limited and Petitioner never worked in the company i.e. M/s Aurochem BuildProp Private Limited and therefore the alleged finding that Petitioner had received huge amount from the investors of the said company, which is a group company of M/s Earth Infrastructure Limited, is frivolous fabricated - HELD THAT - Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the Master Data Record of the company filed by the Petitioner itself shows that the Petitioner has been an authorized signatory of the company since 25th July, 2016 and continues to be so. The Petitioner in his reply dated 30th December, 2021 has taken a defence that he was appointed as a fake manager on 25th July, 2016. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the present petition involves disputed questions of fact as well as allegations of fraud and forgery which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. In any event, the Petitioner has not been able to show to this Court that the Petitioner had, at any stage, asked for a report filed by the Resolution Professional before the NCLT.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961, notice of demand under Section 156, and penalty proceeding under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(b) for Assessment Year 2015-16. Challenge to report implicating the Petitioner prepared without hearing. Seeking direction for true information about Petitioner's role in a company.

Analysis:

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with the notice of demand under Section 156 and penalty proceedings initiated under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(b) for the Assessment Year 2015-16 by Respondent no.1. Additionally, the petitioner contested a report implicating them, prepared without granting an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner also sought a direction for accurate information regarding their role in a company from Respondent no.3. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were based on a report filed in the NCLT, falsely alleging that they had received a substantial sum from investors in a specific company, without providing the details of the report. The petitioner claimed they were not given a fair hearing and that the Respondents had a pre-determined stance.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner had never worked in the company in question and disputed the claim that they had received a significant amount from investors. However, upon examining the company's Master Data Record, it was revealed that the petitioner had been an authorized signatory since a specific date, contradicting the petitioner's defense of being a 'fake manager' appointed later. The Court noted that the case involved disputed facts, allegations of fraud, and forgery, unsuitable for resolution in writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that they had requested the report filed by the Resolution Professional before the NCLT.

Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition and pending applications, granting the petitioner liberty to present their defenses and submissions before the Appellate Authority and other appropriate forums or courts. The judgment left the rights and contentions of all parties open for further proceedings.