9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the notice issued u/s 142(1) as well as the show-cause notice had not been considered and brushed aside in a single line HELD THAT:- The appellant did not question the initiation of the reopening of the assessment by issue of notice u/s 148A (b) nor the appellant challenged the order passed u/s 148(d). Therefore, at this distance of time, the appellant is precluded from questioning the correctness of the order passed u/s 148A (d) of the Act. After the said order, the re-assessment proceedings have commenced and notice under Section 148 has been issued. The assessee has participated in the proceedings, submitted their reply and the assessing officer has considered the reply and passed an order setting out certain reasons. To test the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, 2023 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The learned Single Bench after noting the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellant/ writ petitioner and also taking note of the decision relied on in the case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) 99 Taxmann.com 409 (Del), pointed out the distinguishing features in the said decision and ultimately held that a writ Court cannot act as an assessing officer or an appellate authority to scrutinize the facts and findings based on the evidence made by the assessing officer in the final assessment order which is an appealable order. 2. Mr. Pranit Bag, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has elaborately referred to the factual details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. (Supra) and the decision of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Goyal Versus Union of India Ors. (2023) 453 ITR 535 (Cal) and Krishna Tissues Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India Ors. MAT 648 of 2023 dated 28.04.2023 . 3. Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent department submitted that the learned Single Bench rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy and the issues which are raised by the assessee in the writ petition as well as in this appeal are all factual matters which can be agitated only before the appellate authority and a fact finding exercise will not be permitted by this Court in a writ proceedings. 4. We have elaborate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to avail the alternate remedy. The decision in Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. is factually distinguishable as the petitioner therein sought for quashing the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Court on going through the factual position found that the primary facts have not been shown to be false and the five companies which were said to be shell companies were found to exist. Therefore, the said decision does not render assistance to the case of the appellant. The decision in Dinesh Kumar Goyal arose out of a challenge of an order passed under Section 148A (d) of the Act. On going through the facts, we find that the said decision cannot be applied to the appellant s case. Equally, the decision in Krishna Tissues also will not render ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
