9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn of income though he has taxable income. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) (which in any event has not attained finality) did not bar fresh proceedings under Section 148 - Though the reopening has taken place beyond the period of four years, the reasons which have been indicated to the assessee have a sufficient nexus with the proviso to Section 147 so as to justify the reopening - This is not a case involving a change of opinion since the Assessing Officer has come in possession of material which would indicate that there has been an escapement of income - We do not find any reason to interfere in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution - The Petition shall stand dismissed in favour of Revenue. - Writ Petition (L) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermining the total income of the Petitioner at Rs.40,11,390/-. The Petitioner carried the matter in appeal. The CIT(A) passed an order on 29 March 2010 by which the appeal was allowed on the following grounds: In view of the above facts, it is to be decided as to whether the reassessment proceedings are valid. Admittedly, the AO reopened the assessment on the bona fide belief that the appellant had not filed his ROI. The information which the AO has referred to in the reasons recorded is letter dated 08.04.2008 from ITO 24(1) (3). Even as per this letter there is no indication that the appellant had already filed his return of income for this assessment year and the income admitted is not the actual income. During the course of re-ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 on 18.07.2006 declaring total income of Rs.1,05,275/- and the said return is filed with the ITO-17(1)(4), Mumbai under Ack.No.1714000809. In this case, I am in possession of information which suggest that Shri Hitesh R.Shah, proprietor of M/s.Jainam Trading Co. has obtained accommodation entries from one Mr.Bhavesh Lakhani, Prop of M/s.Pratik Sales Corporation assessed with ITO 24(1)(3), Mumbai. Further information is also received that there have been huge cash deposits in the bank account of Mr.Bhavesh Lakhani, Prop of M/s. Pratik Sales Corporation followed issue of cheque to the assessee. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has shown net profit of Rs.1,62,115/- on sales shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore being reopened by issue of notice u/s.148 of the I.T.Act. The assessee filed objections to the reopening of the assessment which have been disposed of by the Assessing Officer. The contention which has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner is that the fresh notice dated 28 March 2012 has been issued on the same ground as the earlier notice dated 24 April 2008. According to the Petitioner, since the assessment proceedings were dropped on the earlier occasion by the CIT(A) and the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, a fresh notice under Section 148 could not have been issued. 2. On perusing the record, we find that the submission of the Petitioner is misconceived. The ground on which the Assessing Officer had issued the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
