9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were set aside by this Court on the petition of the assessee vide order dated 27th May, 2022 and the matter was remanded to the AO to decide the matter in time bound manner. The impugned Section 148 notice dated 23rd July, 2022 has been passed by the Assessing Officer within the time granted by the Court and, therefore, the said notice cannot be considered time barred as sought to be alleged by the Petitioner. This Court is of the view that the issue whether the transaction was executed by the Petitioner with Nitin Trading Company, a proprietorship of Mr. Aman Bhalla or Mr. Dev Narayan, cannot be adjudicated upon in writ proceedings and that too, when the assessment proceedings are pending. This Court is also of the view that if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Petitioner states that the monetary requirement for reopening assessment is Rs.50 lakhs which is not fulfilled in the present matter as the amount sought to be added in the income of the Petitioner is only Rs.34,62,830/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the Respondents seek to initiate reassessment against the Petitioner based on incorrect facts as the impugned order alleges that the Petitioner has made bogus sales to one Mr.Dev Narayan proprietor of the firm Nitin Trading Company. He, however, points out that the Petitioner had sold its products to Nitin Trading Company, which is a proprietorship firm of Mr. Aman Bhalla and not Mr. Dev Narayan. 4. He further states that the entire sales and records of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Aman Bhalla or Mr. Dev Narayan, cannot be adjudicated upon in writ proceedings and that too, when the assessment proceedings are pending. 7. This Court is also of the view that if the allegations in the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act are correct, then the Petitioner s defence that the transaction had already been subjected to tax is not correct inasmuch as the sale would be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and the full value would be liable to tax. 8. The fact that a scrutiny assessment had been undertaken in the present case would not come to the Petitioner s rescue, as the Respondents had subsequently recieved information that one of the parties with whom the Petitioner had transacte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
