9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17.12.2004, which was served on the petitioner on 20.12.2004. Inspite of appearing before the Assessing Officer and participating in the assessment proceedings the petitioner left a letter on the dak counter of the department on 29.12.2004, requesting to provide them documents. The petitioner-company refused to cooperate with the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings. They deliberately absented from the proceedings as they could not have faced the Assessing Officer, who was aware of the facts and from whom they had taken time to produce the books of accounts – No merit found in the writ petitions – Writ Petitions dismissed – Decided against the Assessee. - Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 167 of 2005, Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 1082 of 2005, Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 1083 of 2005, Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 1084 of 2005, Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 1085 of 2005, - - - Dated:- 20-8-2013 - Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. ORDER 1. We have heard Shri Dhruv Agrawal, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Nikhil Agrawal for the petitioner. Shri Dhananjay Awasthi appears for the Income Tax department. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is alleged that the notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 1998-99 on 18.3.2004, despite the fact that the assessment was complete under scrutiny and assessment orders were passed on 14.12.2000. 6. The petitioner replied through its Chartered Accountant on 15.4.2004 stating that the return already filed by the petitioner company on 25.11.1998 be deemed to be in compliance of the said notice. The Assessing Officer in purported exercise of the powers under Section 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Act sent a questionnaire requiring the details and evidences in respect of the returns filed by the petitioner for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2001-02. Similar notices were issued on 27.8.2004 in respect of assessment year 2002-03. 7. The Assessing Officer again issued notices under Section 142 raising queries under Section 142 (1) of the Act on 26.10.2004 for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2002-03. The petitioner - company vide its letter dated 9.12.2004 filed a detailed reply to the said notices stating that the proceedings relate to the period when Shri D.P. Grover and Mrs. Veena Grover were looking after the affairs of the company. The majority shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly indicate the details particulars and other, if any, of the documents whose photocopy he requires. The concerned authority shall supply the same within two weeks of receipt of copy of this order. This order shall become in operative, in case petitioner fails to file certified copy of this order as stipulated above i.e., on or before 30.12.2004 in case petitioner approaches for obtaining photostat copies of the documents as stipulated above, the same may be given in two weeks of receipt of request. The writ petition is disposed of finally subject to the above observations/directions. No order as to cost." 11. In pursuance to the aforesaid order the petitioner-company requested the Assessing Authority by a letter dated 29.12.2004 to supply the copies of documents mentioned therein. 12. It is submitted by Shri Dhruv Agarwal that the Assessing Officer in contempt of the order of this Court dated 23.12.2004, in an arbitrary manner without application of mind, passed the impugned assessment orders for the assessment years 1998-98 to 2002-03 making huge additions. The Assessing Officer did not even refer to the order of the High Court dated 23.12.2004 in the assessment order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is required by the assessee company to offer its explanation and to file its counter reply. (iv) Copy of Statement of Accounts/other information obtained from PICUP. (v) Copy of Sale Deed referred to during Assessment year 1999 - 2000, purchased on 25th may, 1998 for approx. Rs.450000/- which is adjacent to hotel as stated by your goodself. (vi) Books of Accounts along with necessary bills, voucher etc. (vii) Copy of details obtained from Sales Tax Department. Your goodself will appreciate the fact that the assessee company cannot reply to your various queries in regard to aforesaid assessment years in the absence of information documents asked for as above. We request you to kindly provide us the above documents so that necessary replies may be submitted to your utmost satisfaction. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, FOR SHIVJI PALACE HOTEL CLUB (P) LTD (HARJEET SINGH NALWA) DIRECTOR" 15. Shri Dhruv Agarwal submits that the Assessing Officer committed contempt of the order of the High Court dated 23.12.2004, by which he was required to provide the details of the seized documents to the petitioner for want of which the petitioner could not give effective re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eized by the Assessing Officer. He was never in possession of the original books of accounts. The earlier writ petition was disposed of without giving an opportunity to the Income tax department to bring full facts on record. 20. Shri Dhananjay Awasthi submits relying on the counter affidavit of Shri N.K. Varma, Inspector in the office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Saharanpur that the petitioner was in possession of the original books of accounts as it is evident from the copy of the ordersheet/letter from the Trade Tax Department, where these books of accounts were produced by the petitioner from 31.7.2004 to 29.1.2005. The Trade Tax authorities had signed the order on 29.1.2005, in which he has referred to production of cash books, purchase registers etc. In paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit it is stated that some copies of books of accounts/documents were impounded by the respondents on 17.11.2003 by issuing summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax from Shri Dharampal Singh Grover, Ex-Director of the Company. The petitioner-company had given a letter of request on 13.12.2004 to the Commissioner of Income Tax to produce the accounts books along with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinuing for last five months in which the compliances were incomplete. The Assessing Officer also wrote in his letter that even on 13.12.2004, when the assessee was present, no compliance of the remaining queries was made by him nor any books of accounts were produced and since the cases were getting barred by limitation, in which the assessment was to be finalised upto 31.12.2004 as per directions issued by CBDT, no further time could be allowed. 25. After hearing the submissions and perusing the records, we do not find that the petitioner-company had made out any case for interference in these writ petitions. The department has denied that the books of accounts were in their possession, and has relied on the request made by the petitioner-company through its Chartered Accountant on 13.12.2004 for giving it time to produce the books of accounts. If the books of accounts were in possession of the Assessing Officer since 24.12.2003, there was no question of writing a letter to the Commissioner of Income Tax for giving more time to produce the said documents. Further we find that in the rejoinder affidavit, a reply has been given that in the assessment order passed under the Trade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice that as these documents have been impounded u/s 131 (3) of the IT Act, the same cannot be released without prior approval of Ld. Commissioner of Income tax, Muzaffarnagar. Besides the above, you have also requested for providing copies of some other documents which are available in the records of this office. In this regard also, you are at liberty to take photocopies of the same as directed by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad on 11.1.2005. Sd/- (Y.P.B. SINGH) Asstt. Commissioner of Income tax, Circle, Saharanpur" 27. The receipt of the letter dated 7.1.2005 has not been denied. This letter has been annexed as Annexure-12 of the writ petition. The petitioner-company has not explained as to which of the documents were seized by the department, in respect of which a letter was sent on 24.12.2003 conveying the approval of the Commissioner of Income tax for retention upto 31.12.2004 vide letter dated 8.12.2003. This letter dated 8.12.2003, was made the basis of demand in the earlier writ petition and which is also the basis of challenging the assessment order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The details of the books of account, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly extended. We are unable to appreciate the contention inasmuch the statutory limitation does not get extended unless the attention of the High Court was drawn to the facts that the assessment was going to be barred by time on 31.12.2004 and that the High Court had consciously applied its mind to accept the request or make such extension. In fact the orders were passed disposing of the writ petition on 23.12.2004, without calling for or waiting for the reply from the department and ascertaining whether the assessments were to get barred by time during such period. 31. From the aforesaid discussion based on the affidavits enclosing the documents filed on record, we are of the view that the petitioner was fully aware that the limitation for assessment was going to expire on 8.12.2004. Taking advantage of the letter of the Assessing Officer dated 24.12.2003, which was more than a year old and did not give any details of the books of accounts, which were seized from the previous director of the company, filed the earlier writ petition and obtained an order without disclosing the contents and nature of the documents, which were retained by the department and whether they were releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
