9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reinafter referred to as "the Act"). By the impugned notices, the petitioner was informed that the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle Rajkot (respondent herein), has reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax for the assessment years 1986-87 as well as 1987-88 escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Hence, the respondent proposed to reassess the income for those two assessment years. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated against him and the income should not be made taxable. The petitioner has challenged the legality of those notices by filing these petitions. This court issued notice on June 22, 1995, by making it returnable on Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1987-88 on June 29, 1988. Assessment orders in accordance with law were passed on January 20, 1989. Notice issued under section 263 of the said Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax was also replied by the petitioner on February 1, 1991, and the order was passed on February 28, 1991. A fresh assessment order was passed on March 24, 1993, and depreciation was granted. The Assessing Officer rectified the assessment in accordance with section 143(3) of the Act by passing an order under section 154 of the Act and depreciation to the extent of 30 per cent, was allowed. Thereafter, the present notices were issued. Mr. Shah also submitted that the petitioner filed a reply and contended that there was no failure on his part in making a full and tru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under section 148 of the Act can be issued on the basis of the audit report and, hence, they cannot be held to be legal and valid. Mr. Shah appears to be right in submitting that had the Revenue audit party not raised an objection, in all probability, notices would not have been issued to the petitioner. Be that as it may, since there is no ground and/or reason that there was suppression of material facts by the petitioner for which reopening of the proceedings was felt necessary, issuance of notices under section 148 of the Act was contrary to law. There was no satisfaction on the part of the competent authority which is reflected in the reasons that he had reason to believe that such reopening of proceedings was necessary. Mr. Shah is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
