9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment passed by the learned Single Judge, there is some observation in the following paragraphs as to the scope of the proceedings and the mandate of statutory requirements. According to the learned counsel, some of such observations are quite detrimental to the rights and interest of the Appellant, and though appeal has already been preferred against the assessment order, it may not be possible for the appellate authority to consider and give an independent finding with regard to the scope of the provisions in view of the observations already made by the learned Single Judge. This will make the appellate remedy illusive. It has been made clear in 'paragraph 28' of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge that no opinion was being expressed on merits. The apprehension expressed by the Appellant, though not correct or sustainable in view of the clear observation in view of paragraph 28 of the judgment, to rule out any possibility of a finding to the contrary, we make it clear that the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under challenge will stand only confined to consideration of the question whether interference was to be made by this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition before this Court. The relief sought for were opposed from the part of the Respondents/Revenue. After hearing both the sides, the learned Single Judge, referring to the relevant provisions of law and also the various rulings rendered by the Apex Court held that the requirements in the statutory provision had been satisfied with regard to issuance of the re-assessment notice and it was not liable to be interdicted. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, however, observing in paragraph 28 that no opinion was being expressed with regard to the merits of the case, which was still pending, to be adjudicated before the AO and that the right to challenge the finding was still open to the Petitioner. Correctness of the said finding and reasoning is sought to be challenged in this appeal. 4. We heard Shri S. Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Assessee and Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, the learned Standing Counsel representing the Respondent/Revenue, at length. 5. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that there is a finding rendered by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the reassessment notice issued by the AO is valid, adding that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the bank account of the Petitioner in the course of business and the same have been duly accounted in the books of accounts. The question has been correctly framed by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 16 of the judgment, to the effect whether the transaction of cash in the savings bank account of the Petitioner was a new information or was a tangible material which could be brought within the ambit of income which has escaped assessment so as to attract provisions of Section 147 of the Act. Specific reference is made to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 to contend that though the question/contention raised by the Petitioner has been correctly noted and mentioned in paragraph 16, this particular aspect i.e. whether the deposit of ₹ 1.53 Crores over a period of time in the Savings Bank Account was a new information or a tangible material to be considered as a reason to believe for effecting re-assessment in terms of Section 147 of the Act is omitted to be dealt with. 7. It is pointed out that the learned Single Judge has observed in paragraph 17 of the judgment that, nowhere Section 147 of the Act (either in the main section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her there was any failure on the part of the Petitioner; without which the proviso will not be attracted. If the proviso is not attracted, no proceeding can be there under Section 147 of the Act. 9. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel for the Appellant/Assessee seeks to place reliance on the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Revolution Forver Marketing (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer {(2019) 104 Taxmann.com 61 (Delhi); paragraphs 3, 6 to 8} and Commissioner of Income Tax-Central I v. Indo Arab Air Services {(2015) 64 Taxmann.com 257 (Delhi); paragraphs 20 to 25} holding that the reason for re-assessment was vague and unjustified, in turn leading to quashing of the notice issued for re-assessment. It is also pointed out that the reliance sought to be placed by the learned Single Judge (in paragraph 26 of the judgment) on the verdict rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 336 of 2019 upholding the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(T) No. 234 of 2018 and connected cases, is not applicable to the case in hand. 10. Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent/Revenue submits that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsactions also by supplying a questionnaire, but the Appellant-Assessee could not explain the transactions to the satisfaction of the AO. 12. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue sought to place reliance on a Division Bench verdict of the Patna High Court in Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax; (2019) 410 ITR 205, where it was held that, in absence of any concluded facts being made available, it would not be proper to interfere at the notice stage and accordingly, the writ application was dismissed with liberty to avail the statutory remedy, if so advised. This verdict is stated as affirmed by the Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition bearing No. 24140 of 2018 as per order dated 16.11.2018. Decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in The Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax; {(2012) 348 ITR 439} is also relied on from the part of the Respondents, with specific reference to the observations in paragraphs 9 to 11 as to the conditions precedent spelt out in the provisio to Section 147 of the Act and that the full and true disclosure, which the statute contemplates, must be judged in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt is of the view that it is quite open for the Appellant-Assessee to raise all the challenges, both legal and factual, by availing the statutory remedy. As pointed out already, the notice/proceedings under challenge in the writ petition have culminated in re-assessment order passed by the AO; which admittedly has been challenged by filing statutory appeal and is pending consideration. This being the position, this Court is of the firm view that, it is not a fit case to call for interference at this stage. 16. However, there is a contention for the learned counsel for the Petitioner that though the actual grievance of the Petitioner has been correctly taken note of in paragraph 16 of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, there is some observation in the following paragraphs as to the scope of the proceedings and the mandate of statutory requirements. According to the learned counsel, some of such observations are quite detrimental to the rights and interest of the Appellant, and though appeal has already been preferred against the assessment order, it may not be possible for the appellate authority to consider and give an independent finding with regard to the scope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
