9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 31st July 2022 taking a totally contrary stand has been given by the sanctioning authority. This also expresses the total non application of mind by the PCCIT. We should also note that these points had been raised and recorded in this court s order dated 5th September 2022 but still respondents have not bothered to explain in the affidavit in reply. Therefore, petition is allowed. Further, PCIT directed to conduct an inquiry against the said Amit Kumar as to how he has passed two such orders, which contradict each other, in a span of five days and take necessary action. Petition disposed of. - K. R. SHRIRAM Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Jeet Kamdar i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani. For the Respondent : Mr. Suresh Kumar. P.C. : 1. By this petition, petitioner is challenging the notice dated 30th May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961(the Act), order dated 31st July 2022 passed under Section 148(A)(d) of the act and notice dated 31st July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment for AY-2014-15. 2. Having heard the counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t authority. Hence, Respondent No. 1 dropped the re- assessment proceedings vide his order dated July 26, 2022. (L) Surprisingly, Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated July 31, 2022 under section 148A(d) of the Act which is identical to the order dated July 26, 2022 passed earlier under section 148A(d) of the Act from paragraph 1 to 9. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 took a complete contrary stand than what was already taken by him in the order dated July 26, 2022 under section 148A(d) of the Act. Respondent No. 1 referred to the submissions of the Petitioner and found the same to be untenable. Respondent No. 1 held that the Petitioner has not furnished any documentary evidences to justify the claim. Respondent No. 1 was satisfied that the Petitioner's case is a fit case to issue a notice under the section 148 and the amount of income of Rs. 77,20,00,000/- represented in the form of an asset has escaped assessment. Respondent No. 1 held that the impugned order and notice is being issued after taking prior approval of the competent authority. 3. In paragraph 5.2 of the affidavit in reply filed through one Amit Kumar, affirmed on 8th February 2023, response to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s may be apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished u/s. 39. Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the AO which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant A.Y. and the AO has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice. Explanation 1 - For the purpose of this section and section 148A, the information with the AO which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessments means,- (i) any information flagged in the case of the assessee for the relevant A.Y. in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the Board from time to time. (ii) Any final objection raised by the C AG to the effect that the assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant A.Y. has not been made in accordance with the provisions of this Act . The purpose of issuing notice u/s. 148 is to make assessment/reassessment or re-computation u/s. 147 of the Act. The provisions of section 147 are invoked when any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and the AO may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ancel and set aside the impugned show cause notice dated May 30, 2022 being Exhibit H, the impugned order dated July 31, 2022 being Exhibit P and the impugned notice dated July 31, 2022 being Exhibit Q issued by respondent No. 1. 8. We have to note that post filing of petition, petitioner received a communication dated 26th August 2022, in which the same Amit Kumar, who has filed the affidavit in reply, has recorded as under: It is hereby inform that a letter was issued on 26.07.2022 vide DIN No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1044129225(1) in your case, due to some technical glitch and hence the same is stands cancelled. The letter issued on 31.07.2022 vide DIN No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1044374624(1) is correctly issued after taking prior approval from specified authority should be used for subsequent proceedings. This corrigendum letter is issued superseding the earlier letter dated 26.07.2022 vide DIN No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022- 23/1044129225(1). 9. Strangely, this letter is not even mentioned in the affidavit in reply and what is the technical glitch, also is not explained anywhere. Considering the conclusions in both the orders dated 26th July 2022 and 31st July ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
