9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Narayanaswami, for the Respondents. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN, J. - 1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner/assessee is the appellant in this appeal, which is directed against the order dated 1.9.2003 made in W.P.No.12598 of 2003, where the appellant/writ petitioner/assessee had chosen to challenge the order of the first respondent/Settlement Commission dated 28.10.2002, based on which notices dated 21.3.2003 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), were issued to the appellant/writ petitioner/ assessee, stating the reason for re-opening the assessment with respect to assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, as contemplated under Section 147 of the Act. 2. The fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of Rs.2,43,57,295/- and Rs.83,18,591/- had been shown as profits in the accounts of MAL for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively, yet the appellant/writ petitioner/assessee did not disclose such profits of their share in the Profit Loss A/c. It was under such circumstances, notices dated 21.3.2003 were issued by the Assessing Officer stating that he had reason to believe that due to the lapse on the part of the appellant/writ petitioner/assessee, a sum of Rs.2,43,57,295/ and Rs.83,18,591/- had escaped assessment for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively and accordingly, the assessment was reopened. 5. Aggrieved by the above said notices dated 21.3.2003, the appellant/assessee had chosen to challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice. 7. Per contra, Mr. J. Narayanaswami, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/assessing authority, submits that the observations of the Settlement Commission dated 28.10.2002 with reference to the appellant/writ petitioner/assessee would become a conclusive proof against them, only after giving them an opportunity to submit their objections to the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act stating reasons for reopening the assessment, if they so desire. Since the appellant/writ petitioner/assessee is not aggrieved by the said reason for reopening, much less, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, there is no need to quash the observations made by the Settlement Commissioner in his proceedings dated 28.10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation of his belief that there has been escapement of the income of the assessee should be satisfied. Otherwise, the power conferred under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act would amount to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise. Hence, while making it clear that the authorities do have the power to reopen the assessment under Section 147, the materials relied for such purpose should not be vague but it should be definite, specific, relevant and reliable. 11. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the proceedings of the Settlement Commission dated 28.10.2002 is binding only on M/s.Mohan Aluminium (P) Ltd. (MAL) and not on the appellant. While disposing the case of MAL, the Settlement C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
