9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to tax in petitioner s hand and not the entire sum as done in this case. There is no attempt to even apply their mind as to how, when there are contra entries of buy and sell, both amounts could be added to say escapement of income. Therefore, in this case, considering the figures as given in the reasons for reopening, net income from the buy and sell transactions which can be brought to tax in petitioner s hand and not the entire amount. In the petition, petitioner has stated that this net income also is less than the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax for the assessment year in question and accordingly no income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in petitioner s hand. There is no denial in the affidavit in rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 148 of the Act stating that he has reason to believe that income of petitioner chargeable to tax for assessment year 2014-15 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. In response petitioner filed a return of income on the basis of information then available. In view of the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Ashish Agarwal (444 ITR 1) Respondent No. 1, by letter dated 24th May 2022 informed petitioner to treat the Show Cause Notice issued earlier to be a Show Cause Notice in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act. Respondent No. 1 provided the information and material based on which the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act were initiated as an attachment to the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g upon petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 98,04,340/- should not be treated as income of petitioner. This was replied to by petitioner s Chartered Accountant in which it was stated that at the maximum it has resulted is net gain of Rs. 97,325/- and not Rs. 98,04,340/-. The explanation was not accepted. Thereafter, petitioner received notices under Section 142(1) of the Act in response to which petitioner submitted documents. Finally the assessment order dated 16th May 2023 came to be passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act making an addition of Rs. 98,04,340/- stating that the said amount received through CCM was the undisclosed income of petitioner. This has been followed by Demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remedy and all these grounds could be raised therein. In the affidavit in reply all other grounds have been dealt with but there is a deafening silence as regards ground D raised in this petition. 7. We have considered the petition, reply, documents annexed and also the assessment order impugned in the petition. 8. Mr. Chandrashekhar states that sufficient opportunity was given but none of these factors were brought out in any reply filed and petitioner did not file any reply. 9. At the outset we would say that even if there was no reply filed by petitioner the onus is on department to justify the reopening. If one considers the material relied upon by respondents to reopen, there are two buy and two sell. What has been brought h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
