9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith regard to absence of separate query with regard to AOP, we are not clearly able to cull out whether any separate query / notice was sent to the appellant in Special Appeal No. 30 of 2016. In this regard, we may notice that from the reasons supplied, which we have extracted, wherein ₹ 1,99,31,392/- was noted as escaped assessment, there is reference to the query dated 20.10.2015 and the reminder dated 16.02.2016. We find that in neither writ petition, this query letter dated 20.10.2015 is seen produced. No doubt, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even reasons supplied would show the query letter was addressed to Sri Maruti Nandan Sah and not to AOP but we would think prima facie that Sri Maruti Nandan Sah is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016 issued by respondent proposing to re-assess the income for the AY 2009-10 and pursuant re-assessment proceedings (Annexure No. 1). ii. A writ, order or directing in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents restraining them from proceeding any further in pursuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2016 (Annexure No. 1) Writ Petition No. 2813 of 2016 was filed by Sri Maruti Nandan Sah and brothers. It appears that Sri Maruti Nandan Sah and brothers is an association of persons (hereinafter referred to as AOP ) under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ). Sri Maruti Nandan Sah is the principal member of AOP. The main busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per trading and P L account of the AOP, the only receipt declared apart from other income of ₹ 4,25,80,310/- from the business of liquor sale. Further as per AIR details the assessee made payment of ₹ 2,05,23,993/- for purchase of liquor and timber and parking lot contract etc. but in the Trading and P L a/c total amount debited is for the purchase only and that too only ₹ 1,80,68,601/-. As such there is a difference of ₹ 24,55,392/- under the purchase head. As such amount of ₹ 24,55,392/- is also considered as income escaping assessment. The assessee has not been able to reconcile the deference satisfactorily in its reply. In view of the above facts, I am of the opinion that income amounting to ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us nor they are specifically challenged before us. Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court reported in 2016 (382) ITR 613 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chetan Gupta). This judgment shows that it is rendered in an appeal under Section 260A of the Act. Therein the Court undoubtedly proceeded to hold inter alia that burden of showing that service of notice has been effected, within the meaning of Section 148 of the Act, is on the Revenue. Having regard to the facts of present case, as assessment order has already been passed on the basis of impugned notices, we should dispose of the appeal by leaving it open to the appellants to pursue remedy under the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not interfere under Article 226 in the facts of these cases. Instead, we leave it open to the appellants to raise all contentions available to them under the law before the statutory authority. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that relegating the appellants to avail appropriate remedy would involve the appellants in great financial difficulty as very large sums are involved. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent, after instructions submits that under the circular issued by CBDT appellants would have to deposit only 15% for the purpose of moving stay application. We would think in such circumstances, we cannot grant any further relief in the form of waiver of the amount to be paid, as requested by learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
