9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - SUPREME COURT] there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. The order of re-assessment dated 29.11.2017 thus stands revived in the light of the rejection of the objections of the petitioner dated 19.02.2018. The petitioner seeks and is granted liberty to challenge the order of re-assessment dated 29.11.2017 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Since the petitioner has been litigating against the proceedings for re-assessment from 19.12.2017 when it filed the first writ petition challenging the order of reassessment, the appeal shall be received by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), if filed within two weeks from today, without reference to limitation. - WP. No.6103 of 2018 And WMP. Nos.7522 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Writ of a Certiorari quashing the aforesaid order of re-assessment and consequential notice of demand dated 29.11.2017. The writ petition was disposed on 21.12.2017 directing the Assessing Officer to furnish the reasons for re-opening and granting the petitioner fifteen days time to submit his objections thereto, in line with the procedure set out in this case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. Income Tax Officer [(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)]. The respondent was directed to pass a speaking order and communicate the same within a period of two (2) weeks to the petitioner. The assessment was however not set aside. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner has been furnished reasons for re-opening and filed objections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the course of enquiry conducted by the DDIT, Shri Vinith K Bhansali has stated that he received a sum of ₹ 1.60 crores as loan from M/s.Sha Rikhabdas Madaji Co. (PAN AABFS0195H) a partnership firm where his father Shri Kantilal Bansali is one of the partners. On further verification by the DDIT, the firm M/s.Sha Rikhabdas Madaji Co. explained the sources for the payments of ₹ 1.60 crores to Shri Vinith K Bhansali as loan of ₹ 1.75 crores received from M/s.Balaji Reality, Indore. No confirmation or any other evidence was produced before the Investigation Wing. On verification from the ITD System, it is found that the assessee firm filed its return of income for Asst. Year 2010- 11 on 22.03.2013 admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escaped assessment. The only material referred to were the statement of accounts, balance sheet, audited report etc. which in any way were available with the AO in respect of both the Petitioner and the firm for the AY in question at the time of issuance of the order/ intimation under Section 143 (1) of the Act. The reasons recorded were therefore at best a change of opinion based on suspicion and surmises. 17. It is further submitted by Mr Monga that the notice under Section 148 of the Act cannot be issued for the purpose of verification of the material already available with the authorities. Mr. Monga placed reliance on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 187 Taxman 312 (SC), a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discussion above as well as the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri (supra), there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. 8. The order of re-assessment dated 29.11.2017 thus stands revived in the light of the rejection of the objections of the petitioner dated 19.02.2018. The petitioner seeks and is granted liberty to challenge the order of re-assessment dated 29.11.2017 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Since the petitioner has been litigating against the proceedings for re-assessment from 19.12.2017 when it filed the first writ petition challenging the order of reassessment, the appeal shall be received by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), if filed withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
