9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny clarity as to whether the AO had underlying material available with him for reaching a conclusion that income chargeable to tax qua the petitioner had escaped assessment. This aspect would have, perhaps, become clear if the AO had accorded personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner. As required to be noticed that, as adverted to hereinabove, the search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was not carried out against the petitioner; such action was carried out against a third party. The period in issue, as noted right at the outset, is FY 2018-19 [AY 2019-20]. There seems to be weight in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the CBDT via the aforementioned circular i.e., circular da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t ]. Besides this, a challenge is also laid to the consequential notice of even date i.e., 22.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 6. The principal allegation against the petitioner is that it is a beneficiary of an accommodation entry provided in the form of bogus loans, amounting to Rs. 35,18,52,491/- during the period in issue i.e., Financial Year (FY) 2018-19 [Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20]. 6.1 It is alleged by the respondent/revenue that the bogus accommodation entry was provided by Aneri Fincap Ltd. [in short, AFL ]. 6.2 It is also asserted by the respondent/revenue that AFL is one of several entities controlled by an accommodation entry provider i.e., one, Mr Rajesh G Mehta. 6.4 The record shows that these allega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for the petitioner has relied upon the circulars issued by the CBDT dated 01.08.2022 and 22.08.2022. 11. On the other hand, Mr Gaurav Gupta, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, has taken the position that since AFL was a paper company, the petitioner could not have, possibly, entered into any genuine loan transaction. 11.1 It is also Mr Gupta s contention that the petitioner did not place on record any loan agreement pursuant to which, possibly, the loan was given, as asserted by it. 12. We have heard the counsels for the parties. 13. What emerges from the record, presently, available before the court is that the reassessment proceedings were triggered against the petitioner pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hermore, the period in issue, as noted right at the outset, is FY 2018-19 [AY 2019-20]. 17. There seems to be weight in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the CBDT via the aforementioned circular i.e., circular dated 01.08.2022 and 22.08.2022 has relaxed the rigour of the law. 17.1 It appears that the CBDT has read into the provisions of 148A and Section 148 of the Act, the principles of natural justice. 18. Therefore, we are of the view that the best way forward would be to set aside the order dated 22.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and consequential notice of even date i.e., 22.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 18.1 It is ordered accordingly. 19. The AO will, however, be at libe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
