9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , cement etc. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 30-10-2009 declaring total income of Rs. 28,94,360/-. The information was received by the Income Tax Department from the State Sales Tax Department regarding assessee's involvement in dealing with suspicious Hawala Dealers. The reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee. Notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was issued to the assessee on 05-03-2014. The assessee vide letter dated 25-03-2014 requested the Assessing Officer to consider the original return of income as return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee filed objections against reasons for reopening the assessment. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Inspector before reopening the assessment, however, the enquiry report on the basis of which assessment has been reopened was never supplied to the assessee. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has concluded that no material was received by the assessee against invoice and only bogus purchases were made. These findings by the Assessing Officer are only based on surmises. The assessee during the proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had furnished the copies of ledger extracts of the alleged Hawala dealers, the copies of invoices raised by the vendors, the copies of the weightment slips and transport invoices confirming delivery of goods, the copy of the bank statement highlighting the payments made to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax Vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd., 384 ITR 147 (Delhi); iii. Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr., 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). 5.2 The ld. AR submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in impugned order has made certain observations which are contrary to the facts. The ld. AR pointed that in para 8.3 of the impugned order, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has mentioned that the assessee has admitted that no real business was conducted by the alleged suppliers and no physical delivery of goods were ever made by the suppliers. The payments transferred through banking channel were received back in cash after deducting commission @ 1%. The above observations made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer reported as 259 ITR 19 (SC). The assessee was provided opportunity to file objections against the reasons for reopening. The objections filed by the assessee were duly considered and were disposed of by passing a separate speaking order. Thus, there is no violation of any law as has been alleged by the assessee. 7. Controverting the submissions forwarded by the DR, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee cooperated with the Assessing Officer all the time. The assessee provided necessary documents as and when required. The assessee failed to furnish only those documents which were not in his possession as the same were seized by the Sales Tax authority at that point of time. The ld. AR asserted that it is not a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days on 16-03-2015. 9. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (supra) has held that the Assessing Officer should provide four weeks time to the assessee after rejection of objections before passing of the assessment order. 10. In the present case, we observe that the Assessing Officer has violated the directions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (supra) in not allowing four weeks time to the assessee before passing the assessment order after rejecting the objections. The time line set out by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in allowing four weeks time to the assessee is binding on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 10 December 2013, that it is preparing a petition to challenge the re-opening for A. Y. 2008-09 on identical grounds as done in earlier Assessment Year namely A. Y. 2007-08 which is pending in this Court and ad interim relief has also been granted, restraining the revenue from proceeding with the assessment for A. Y. 2007-08. The passing of an order on 19 December 2013 by the Assessing Officer in undue haste and thereafter contending that in view of alternative remedy, the writ petition should not be entertained, does not appear bonafide. This undue haste in passing the impugned order dated 19 December 2013 is an attempt to overreach the Court and to thwart the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order dated 20 November 2013 pend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
