9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e initiated under Section 148 of the Act, i.e., after filing of the assessment, but the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner could not be put to such a ordeal, at this stage, more so, when the Order came to be passed without verifying the records, cannot also be brushed aside. The issue is fortified by the fact that, in respect of information furnished under CIB, the Petitioner was able to explain the deposits made in the assessment year 2015-16, which tallied with the figures mentioned in the notice. The Order under challenge is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the first Respondent with a direction that a fresh notice be given, disclosing the details of the second bank account if any with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... six [06] years from the end of the relevant assessment year, to which the Petitioner is said to have submitted an explanation under Section 148A(c) of the Act, on 21.03.2022. Taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the Petitioner, the Authorities felt that it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, for the assessment year 2015-2016. This Order is sought to be challenged in the present Writ Petition, on various grounds. 3. (i) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly submits that, the primary condition under Section 149 of the Act, to issue a notice is not satisfied, as the Assessing Officer was not in possession of books of account or other documents to find out the income chargeable to ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount covered under the head CIB. In other words, his plea appears to be that the same amount is shown twice under two different heads vide two different annual returns, which escalated the amount carrying to Rs.51,00,000/-. In-fact, the Authorities ought to have given an opportunity to explain this contingency before passing the impugned order. It is stated that along with the explanation, the Petitioner filed the bank accounts showing that he has deposited only Rs.26,00,000/- into his bank account and that he has only one bank account in Andhra Bank at Kaikaluru. According to him, things would have been different if the AIR disclosed the bank account number, which would have enabled the Petitioner to explain the same. (v) The notice g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 148 is not a final proceeding, it is stated that, the Petitioner has not made out any case seeking interference by this Court. 6. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the Order passed under Clause (d) of Section 148A warrants interference? 7. As seen from the record, a notice under Clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act was issued to the Petitioner basing on the information that the income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2015-2016 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Hence, a notice was issued on 20.03.2022 calling upon the Petitioner to explain with supporting documents on or before 29.03.2022. 8. The notice issued under Clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act, also contai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) of Section 148 of the Act. Further, when a objection is raised by the Petitioner under Clause (c) of Section 14A of the Act, it was the duty of the Respondent to at-least verify the error committed by them in not disclosing the branch of the bank where an amount of Rs. 26,00,000/- have been deposited, more so, when the case of the Petitioner is that he is having only one account in Andhra Bank at Kaikaluru. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the bank has reported the same transactions twice under two different heads through two different AIR, cannot be brushed aside, at this stage, more so, when the statement of account of Andhra Bank, Kaikaluru, was enclosed along with the notice. 11. It may be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt number, it can be said that the Petitioner was given an opportunity to explain a fact, which is against him and which could be made the basis to issue notice under Section 148. This issue is fortified by the fact that, in respect of information furnished under CIB, the Petitioner was able to explain the deposits made in the assessment year 2015-16, which tallied with the figures mentioned in the notice. 14. Having regard to the above and the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court relied upon, the Order under challenge is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the first Respondent with a direction that a fresh notice be given, disclosing the details of the second bank account if any with Andhra Bank or in any branch of Andhra Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
