9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of mind. In fact, petitioner s allegations that Respondent No.1 has sought to re-open the assessment on incorrect factual position that the return of income was only processed under Section 143(1) of the Act has not even been denied in the affidavit in reply which is filed by the same Assessing Officer. In paragraph no.2 of the affidavit in reply which is in response to paragraph no.1 and 2 of the petition, Respondent No.1 simply says that these are factual in nature and the notice under Section 148 dated 26th March, 2019 and the order disposing the objections and the notice dated 22nd October, 2019 are issued in pursuance of the objective of completing reassessment in accordance with the procedures laid down. On this ground alone, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout non application of mind. In the reasons it is stated The assessee is an individual and the Return of Income for A.Y. 2012-13 was filed on 24th September, 2012 declaring total loss of ₹ 4,21,11,382/- and the same was processed by the C.P.C. .It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee had filed return of income for the year under consideration but no assessment as stipulated under Section 2(40) of the Act was made and the return of income was only processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. In view of the above, provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... davit in reply has not even bothered to annex the sanction obtained which gives us a feeling that the said Mr. Ramesh C. Meena who issued notice under Section 148 of the Act containing errors of facts and who has filed affidavit in reply does not wish to produce the same. We have to, therefore draw adverse inference against respondent that if it is disclosed it may be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 7. One wonders whether the sanctioning authority under Section 151 of the Act also would have even applied his mind because the reasons recorded as noted above itself displays non application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, either no sanction as contemplated under Section 151 of the Act has been obtained or the same was g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
