9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25.05.2022 i.e. the notice initially issued under Section 148 of the old Act and under Section 148A(b) of the new Act that the department has not disclosed the fact in its notice of the petitioner having suppressed this 14 Lakh rupees transaction and this has also escaped assessment of the Department. In the absence of the same being reflected in the notice, the assessment yet being made of the said amount would be prima facie bad in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. [ 006 (8) TMI 184 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein as emphatically held that the Department cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. Thus keeping in view the circular of the Department this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the purview of the assessment proceedings as per circular dated 11.05.2022. 4.The contention of the petitioner is that the authorities concerned have taken into consideration the transaction of an amount of Rs.14 Lakhs made by one Smt. Rekha Soni while carrying out the assessment, but the said 14 Lakhs transaction was not the contents of the notice that was issued. Therefore, the petitioner never had an opportunity to submit his explanation at the first instance. That, it is only during the assessment proceeding that the officers of the Department had taken this aspect and have also added the said amount while passing the order under Section 148A(b)(d). This, according to the petitioner is not otherwise permissible as the authorities c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department. In the absence of the same being reflected in the notice, the assessment yet being made of the said amount would be prima facie bad in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. 2006(7) SCC 592 wherein in paragraph 16 the Supreme Court has emphatically held that the Department cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. 7.There is another judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court in this respect in N.D. Bhatt, Inspecting Assistant Vs. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation, 1995 216 ITR 811 Bom, wherein in paragraph 18 it has been held as under: 18. It is also well settled that the reasons for reopening are required to be recorded by the assessing aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the part of the assessee at the time of the original assessment. Nor do these reasons allege that the assessee was in possession of the facts which it has failed to prove. In these circumstances, the provision of s. 147(a) are not attracted. 8.Similar view has also been taken by the Division Bench of this High Court in a bunch of Writ Appeals which were decided on 17.05.2018, the leading of which being M/s Kishan Lal and Company and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax Another, wherein in paragraph 8 it has been mentioned as under : 8. It is settled by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. 1 at para 16 that the department/ Revenue cannot travel beyond the show-cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
