Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (2) TMI 994

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s initiated under Section 148 of the Act by dropping them the revenue chose inexplicably to keep those proceedings alive - This is illegal and impermissible in law - This amounts to nothing but harassment of the petitioner - There appears to be some vested interest in keeping the proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the notice alive – revenue have to act in accordance with law and not under any pressure - The AO, being a responsible officer should not be party or pressurised by someone to personal vendetta – thus, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act as well as the letter set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee. - W. P. (C) 7977/2011 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2014 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R. V. Easwar,JJ. For the Peti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The reasons were furnished on 27.06.2011 to which the petitioner filed objections questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent No.1 to issue the notice. It was contended that the reasons recorded were not sufficient in law to entertain the belief that there was escapement of income, that the allegations levelled in the tax evasion petition on the basis of which the assessment was reopened were factually incorrect and further that the re-assessment proceedings were barred by limitation. The first did not agree with the objections and dismissed them vide order dated 25.07.2011. Against the said order the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.6011/2011 on 17.08.2011, impugning both the notices issued under Section 148 and the order dismissing the obje .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... missioner of Income Tax, Range-40, New Delhi. Objections were filed by you for the re-opening of assessment on 18.07.2011. The objections filed were disposed off vide this office order dated 25.07.2011 which were challenged by you by way of writ petition before the Hon ble High Court, Delhi. On 19.09.2011 your authorized representatives Sh. Rohit Garg, Chartered Accountant Sh. Amit Sachdeva, Advocate appeared in this office and filed submissions dated 19.09.2011 and discussed the matter. It was pointed out by your A.R s that initiation of re-assessment proceedings were bad in law and void ab initio on the following grounds: - 1) There was no reason to believe that income of the assessee had escaped the assessment; 2) The reasons .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... w.r.t. acquisition of aforesaid property, detailed investigations were carried out. Enquiries were made from the occupants of the aforesaid property w.r.t. ownership. Enquiries were also made from the sub-registrar s office. The results of enquiries do not connect the assessee with the property in question. It has been established on the basis of enquiries and documents gathered that the contents of the tax evasion petition w.r.t. purchase of May Fare Garden property are not substantiated or corroborated. The contents of the tax evasion petition w.r.t. alleged purchase of the property no.B-8, Cosmopolitan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Hauz Khas (Shahpur Jat known as May Fare Garden), New Delhi by you are factually incorrect. In v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Income Tax, Circle 40(1), New Delhi 5. It is necessary to mention here that on 16.11.2011 this Court had stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 31.03.2011 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 6. The contentions of the petitioner deserve acceptance. Once the first respondent found, after due inquiries, that there was no basis to connect the petitioner with the May Fair Garden property, he ought to have dropped the reassessment proceedings. Nothing survived thereafter. He was, therefore, acting outside jurisdiction when he issued a letter on 02.11.2011 calling upon the petitioner to avail of the opportunity, if so advised, given to him to cross-examine the complainant i.e., the person who was the author of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates