9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment indicate that certain purchase details may not be genuine - the occasion to consider the genuineness of the purchase bill was never a subject matter of scrutiny in the proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 – the notice issued for reassessment u/s 148 cannot be interfered – Decided against Assessee. - WRIT PETITION NO.2859 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2861 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2014 - M. S. SANKLECHA AND GIRISH S. KULKARNI, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. J.D. Mistry, Senior Advocate i/by Jitendra Singh For the Respondent : Mr. Suresh Kumar JUDGEMENT In these petitions, the petitioners have assailed two notices dated 7 December 2012 issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urvey by Mumbai investigation Wing. Knowing this fact as well as the status of additions made in the past assessment years, it was decided to undertake action u/s. 133A of the I. T. Act to find out further evidences strengthening the bogus purchase transactions. The result of survey clearly brings out findings supporting and strengthening the evidences regarding the bogus purchase transactions done by the assessee company from year to year. A rough working of ₹ 35 crores (from A.Y.2005-06 to A.Y.2010-11) worth of purchase are found to be from the parties which are non existent/bogus billers. The chart annexed shows the year wise amount of bogus transactions done by the assessee. Hence, accordingly I have reason to believe that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical and similar to the reasons which have been disclosed in support of another notice dated 7 December 2012 issued to the petitioner seeking to reopen the assessment for A.Y. 2005-06. The notice dated 7 December 2012 in respect of A.Y. 2005-06 was also a subject matter of challenge in this Court being W. P. No.2860 of 2012. This Court by an order dated 18 June 2014 passed in W.P. No.2860 of 2012 refused to entertain the petition. However according to Mr. Mistry, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners the decision rendered by this Court in W.P. No.2860 of 2012 on 18 June 2014 is in applicable to the present facts on account of the following: a) The present impugned notices have been issued within 4 years from the end of the relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the revenue in support of the impugned notices in both the petitions submits as under: (a) In these petitions the assessment proceedings sought to be reopened is less than four years as compared to the notice being beyond four years in A.Y.2005-06 and the challenge to the same in W. P. No.2860/2012 was not entertained. It must follow that the test to acquire jurisdiction in cases of reopening for less than four years would be far less strict as compared to notices seeking to reopen assessment proceeding beyond four years. b) The impugned notices came to be issued, as in subsequent scrutiny proceeding for A.Y.2008-09 and survey proceedings the respondent revenue received information that purchases claimed by the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings under Section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y.2006-07 and 2007-08 the Assessing officer asked the petitioners for complete details of their purchases and the address of the sellers and the details as sought for by the revenue were furnished by the petitioners. However, it is only subsequently that the revenue has learnt during the survey proceedings and the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2008-09 that purchases from certain sellers as intimated in the chart annexed to the reasons furnished to the petitioners were allegedly bogus. In this view of the matter, during the original assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had proceeded on the basis that the purchase details furnished by the petitioners including the bills of purchase are g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
