9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer to now proceed on the basis of the notice dated 5th July, 2007 and pass reassessment orders, it is not necessary to go into the other issues raised. Reassessment proceedings are set aside on this ground alone - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - WP (C) No. 8526/2008 - - - Dated:- 25-11-2009 - A.K. SIKRI, SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, JJ. For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Jain, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Mahna and Mr. Ramanand Roy, Advs. In this writ petition the Petitioner has challenged reopening of the assessment proceedings vide notice dated 5th July, 2007 under Section 24 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act. The ground taken in the writ petition was that at the time of issuing of the notice dated 5t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act would be four years or six years in the instant case, it would be apposite to scan through the provision of Section 24 which reads as under: 24. Turnover escaping assessment (1) Where after a deal has been assessed under section 23 for any year or part thereof, the Commissioner has reason to believe that the whole or any part of the turnover of a dealer in respect of any period has escaped assessment to tax or has been under assessed or has been assessed at rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable, or any deduction has been wrongly made therefrom, the Commissioner may ? (a) within six years from the date of final order of assessment, in a case where the dealer has concealed, omitted or failed to disclose fully the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear that it was not done on the basis that there was any concealment or omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully the particulars of such turnover. The reasons themselves demonstrate that the entire turnover as disclosed by the Petitioner is taken into account and the reasons given is that claims of deduction made by the Petitioner was not permissible under Rule 5 of the Works Contracts Rules, 1999. Thus it is not the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had not disclosed full particulars. In these circumstances, the limitation has prescribed under Section 24(1)(b) i.e. four years from the date of final order of assessment would apply. The view which we are taking is in consonance with the judgment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
