9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold. Period of limitation - So far as the contention of the petitioner that as per Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, the time has expired for reassessment as the informative value happened to be less than Rs. 50,00,000/- has not impressed us because as per the information available with the assessing officer, the total escaped income for consideration is Rs. 1,84,45,194/- i.e. more than Rs. 50,00,000/-. Notice dated 05.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Act is in violation of the Notification of Ministry of Finance dated 29.03.2023 - as suffice it to say that prior to the issuance of the Notification of Ministry of Finance dated 29.03.2023, notice under Section 148A (b) had already been issued to the petitioner on 28.02.2023 and in such circumstances, the process of issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act had begun prior to the issuance of aforesaid notification of Ministry of Finance. Hence, it cannot be said that the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued in non-compliance of the same. Thus not a fit case to interfere in the impugned order as well as the notice issued by the assessing officer. Decided against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (d) of the Income Tax Act and the consequential reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation in terms of Clause(a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 149 because the informative value happened to be less than Rs. 50 lac and three years from relevant assessment year have elapsed. 7. It is also contended that the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act has been passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 8. It is further contended that reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued in utter non-compliance of the notification dated 29.03.2023. 9. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of Bombay High Court dated 13.03.2023 rendered in Anurag Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 10184/2022). He has also placed reliance on decisions of Delhi High Court rendered in Krishna Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14 (Writ Petition (C) No. 7266/2023) dated 25.05.2023 and in Balesh Jain Sons HUF Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. (Writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also mentioned that the assessee did not file income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17. 15. As per the petitioner, he submitted two short replies, however, filed a detailed reply later on. Though in first line of the detailed reply, the petitioner has mentioned that the reply is in response to the show cause notice dated 14.10.2022 but in first and second paras of the reply, reference of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 28.02.2023 is mentioned. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not in receipt of any information as mentioned in the notice dated 28.02.2023 as enclosed. He has stated that in the year 2015, he purchased one plot in the joint ownership of him, Anurag Lohiya and Swati Lohiya and no other immovable property has ever been purchased or sold by him. It is contended by the petitioner that the information available with the assessing officer is incorrect. Along with the reply, the petitioner has submitted bank statement of him and the copies of income tax returns for the year 2016-17 of Anurag Lohiya and Swati Lohiya have been attached. 16. In the last para of the reply, it is submitted by the petitioner that the TDS of Rs. 4,523/- has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red any such transaction, however, the bank statements of the relevant years have not been furnished by the assessee. 20. From the order passed by the assessing officer under Section 148A(d) of the Act, it is clear that the details about the said transaction are available on tax payer annual summary report of the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the details of such transactions are not available on the tax payer annual summary report of him. 21. In such circumstances, the reasons assigned by the assessing officer in the order dated 05.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act cannot be brushed aside at the threshold. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Centre XI, Range Bombay and others (Civil Appeals No. 1972 of 1992 with No. 1973 of 1992, dated 17.12.1997 held as under: "In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
