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

2007 (7) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssment had been rejected. 3 A few relevant facts may be set out which are as under : 4 The petitioners were involved in supplying goods to the State of Iraq. The petitioners had the requisite permission. The petitioners filed the return of income for the assessment year 2000-01 on which art assessment order came to be passed. It is not necessary to refer to the various other facts. 5 The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice to the petitioner under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) setting out therein that the income chargeable to the tax for the assessment year 2000-01 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and, therefore, the authority proposed to reassess the inco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rt is admittedly a published document in which the name of the petitioner-company appears as being involved—whether the case gets covered factually in the alleged "kick back" payment or not is matter of scrutiny and investigation by the income-tax authorities and it could not be said that the documents in the form of Volcker Committee Report cannot be waived as hearsay information since the same has taken the shape of Government record. 7 At the hearing of this petition, on behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted that the reasons to believe as communicated to reopen the assessment are based on no material and consequently the notice under section 148 of the Act has to be quashed and/or the rejection of objections by communication dated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to say that the office memorandum lists the petitioners as one of the companies to have paid the appropriate amount known as "kick back". It is, therefore, submitted that this court ought not to interfere at this stage in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 9 We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The question is whether prima facie there are reasons to believe, which gave jurisdiction to respondent No. 1 to issue notice under section 148 of the Act. The office memorandum was issued on November 18, 2005. The subject of the memorandum is "Enquiry in respect of entities mentioned in the Volcker Committee Report." The said office memorandum lists the Indian companies. The petitioners' name is shown in one of the lists and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issuing such notice under section 148 of the Act are "reasons to believe". 12 In our opinion, though on behalf of the petitioners, it is vehemently sought to be contended that there exists no reasons, prima facie we are of the opinion that the petitioners have a remedy of showing cause before respondent No. 1, which, in our opinion, would be an adequate and efficacious remedy. This would, therefore, be a case where this court on the present facts ought not to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. We may point out that the hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 19 has while disposing of the special leave to appeal observed as under (page 20) "We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under ch .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of by issuing following directions. (i) This petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated June 7, 2007, for the assessment year 2000-01 is set aside and the matter is remanded to respondent No. 1 to dispose of the objections filed along with additional objections, if any, by following the due procedure of law and in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 19. (ii) The entire exercise should be completed within a period of eight weeks from today. (iii) If on remand, the order passed is adverse to the petitioner, the same shall not be acted upon for a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order. (iv) Rule to the above extent is made absolute. (v) In the circumstances of t .....

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