9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The nature of contentions raised by the Appellant/Assessee is with regard to the satisfaction of the reasons for reopening the assessment after four years. The approval granted and the reasons which made the Income Tax Officer to believe that some income had escaped assessment have to be tested with regard to the actual facts and figures. This comes within the scope of alternative remedy by way of appeal and no prejudice can be stated as caused to the Appellant/Assessee in this regard. To put it more clear, it is not a case where mere question of law is involved; such as violation/non-satisfaction of the particular provisions or as to lack of competency of the authority who has passed the order for proceeding further. Respondent/Revenue submits that assessment proceedings were finalized in respect of 'five' different assessment years and hence five different writ petitions came to be filed by the Appellants/Assessee. Among the 'five', two writ petitions have already been withdrawn and the Assessees have chosen to avail the statutory remedy. As it stands so, no differential treatment is warranted in respect of the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 on 08.01.2014. Four years later, a notice of reassessment under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was issued to the Appellant/Assessee on 07.02.2018. On receipt of the said notice, the Appellant/Assessee requested for furnishing the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act of 1961, by submitting an application dated 22.02.2018 addressed to the competent authority; which came to be supplied on 22.02.2018. An application was submitted on 07.03.2018, to furnish approval/sanction accorded in terms of Section 151(1) of the Act of 1961 which led to issuance of notice under Section 148(2) of the Act of 1961. On receipt of the reasons recorded for issuing notice under Section 148(2) of the Act of 1961, it was sought to be objected by filing statement of objections on 22.03.2018. It is the case of the Appellant/Assessee that the said objections were considered in a quite mechanical manner and turned down on the very same day, as per order dated 23.03.2018, with intent to proceed with further steps, which hence was sought to be challenged by filing writ petition before this Court. Similar na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its that the scrutiny assessment was finalized in terms of Section 143 of the Act of 1961, based on the return submitted by the Appellant/Assessee. Later, in the course of survey under Section 133A of the Act of 1961, various incriminating materials were brought to light and statement of the Assessee was taken. The materials collected revealed that share transfers were done in respect of various shell companies and there was a conscious attempt of defrauding the revenue because of the escaped income from assessment. It was accordingly, that necessary proceedings were initiated and approval of the competent authority, in terms of Section 151(1) of the Act of 1961, was obtained. After getting approval as above, statutory notice was issued under Section 148(2) of the Act of 1961 to the Assessee. The reasons recorded were furnished to the Assessee on application. The objections preferred were considered with proper application of mind and it was repelled accordingly. It was after analysis of the facts and figures in the light of the relevant provisions of law and binding precedents, that the reassessment was finalized. Instead of challenging the reassessment by way of effective alterna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yers which was the subject matter of challenge in the appeal preferred by the Revenue (in Writ Appeal No. 293 of 2017). The Division Bench held that the course pursued by the learned Single Judge was not correct and accordingly, the judgment in the writ petition was set aside and the appeal preferred by the Revenue was allowed in the following terms: 33. To sum up the matter, when there existed reason to belief which is formed on the basis of material available having nexus with the subject, writ Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition more so when assessment order have already been passed during pendency of the writ petition, therefore, we set aside the order passed by the writ Court and relegate the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal against the reassessment order which may be filed within a period of 30 days from today. The writ petitioner would be at liberty to raise all grounds both factual and legal in the said appeal. The appellate authority shall entertain the appeal for decision on merits without raising objection as to limitation. Though the Assessee took up the matter by filing the SLP before the Apex Court, after condoning the delay, the SLP c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
