9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order passed appears to be an elaborate order, the conclusion is only in one paragraph. AO has stated that the bank statements in respect of the transactions done for the financial year 2015-16 (assessment year 2016-17) has to be mandatorily verified to examine the nature of transactions. This cannot done by the assessing officer because the proceedings initiated by the assessing officer for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2016-17 has been quashed. Therefore, this is a glaring omission in the order impugned in the writ petition. Apart from that, the assessing officer would state that no prudent businessman will simply withdraw crores of cash from his bank account and again will deposit it at various stage. This is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 relevant to the financial year 2015-16. The said reopening proceedings were put to challenge by the writ petitioner by filing WPA 20669 of 2022 which was allowed by order dated 28.07.2022. The said order has become final and the department had not filed any intra court appeal against the said order. With regard to the assessment year 2017-18 relevant to the financial year 2016-17, the assessee was issued a notice under Section 148A(b) dated 30.05.2022. In the notice it has been stated that credible information has been received through insight portal regarding cash deposits, interest receipts, purchase of debentures etc. The notice states that the details are annexed. The annexure to the notice is an extract of the relevant particulars wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed which was impugned in the writ petition. The revenue seeks to sustain the order passed in the writ petition by contending that the order has been passed after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee, the order is a speaking order and the writ court cannot adjudicate into disputed questions of fact. 7. In support of this contention, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned standing counsel for the department placed reliance of this court in Shri Shyam Sundar Dhanuka v. Union of India and Others reported in APOT 187 of 2023 dated 30.08.2023 and the decision of the Hon ble Division Bench of the High Court at Telengana in the case of Yelliah Setty v. assistant Commissioner of Income- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aph, namely, para 8. The assessing officer has stated that the bank statements in respect of the transactions done for the financial year 2015-16 (assessment year 2016-17) has to be mandatorily verified to examine the nature of transactions. This cannot done by the assessing officer because the proceedings initiated by the assessing officer for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2016-17 has been quashed. Therefore, this is a glaring omission in the order impugned in the writ petition. Apart from that, the assessing officer would state that no prudent businessman will simply withdraw crores of cash from his bank account and again will deposit it at various stage. 9. In our view, this is a personal opinion of the assessing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
