9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued under Section 148 of the Act. It is also true that this stand of illegality of the notice has been taken for the first time in the petition. In the two communications sent by petitioners' Chartered Accountant this stand has not been taken. We would hasten to add we are not giving any decision on waiver or estoppel. We are only saying that against the notice petitioner has straight away approached this Court without even complying with the requirements stated by the Hon ble Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. [ 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] . In our view, petitioner should have, on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (Supra), filed return of income and then sought reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior Advocate, Ms. Aakansha Saxena and Mr. Nikhil Rajani i/b. M/s. V. Deshpande and Co. For the Respondents - Revenue : Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma. JUDGMENT (PER K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) : 1. Petitioner is challenging a notice dated 26th March 2012, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Pune, who is respondent no. 1, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. Rule was issued on 17th December 2012 and the Court observed that whether the unsigned notice is valid, is a question which needs consideration. 3. Various grounds have been raised but the primary ground on which the notice is challenged and is alleged to be not valid is that the notice is unsigned. According to petitioner, absence of a signature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to drop all plans to re-open the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Petitioner also called upon respondent no. 1 to provide, on without prejudice basis, reasons for re-opening of the assessment. It is alleged in the petition that this was not replied to by the Department. A reminder was sent by a letter dated 3rd September 2012 from petitioners' advocates delivered only on 3rd October 2012 once again calling upon respondent no. 1 to provide the reasons for re-opening the assessment. Respondent no. 1 responded by a letter dated 4th October 2012 stating that the reasons have not been provided in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v/s. Income Tax Officer and Ors. 2003 (259) ITR 19 (SC) whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additional affidavit of Uma Shankar Prasad which was filed to which is annexed a copy of an affidavit of one Mahesh G. Jiwade, who was the Assessing Officer, who issued the impugned notice. In the second affidavit, respondents have tried to make out a case that the impugned notice was infact signed. Even their office copy is signed. Perhaps it was a human error. There is of course an affidavit in rejoinder also filed. We do not wish to go into the factual aspects of this in our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is true that without the reasons to believe escapement of income, petitioner would not be able to file its objections to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. It is also true ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice and the notice should be held to be invalid. Mr. Kadam submitted that it would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess the income of petitioner. 10. Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj (Supra) was a case where to a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, petitioner had filed objections and the Revenue had passed an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and together with that issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act and it was that notice under Section 148 of the Act which was not signed. Therefore, in that case petitioner had already responded to the initial notice received from the Revenue whereas in this case, petitioner has not even filed the return of income in response to the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bill Passing Purchase Vouchers were generated. Further, the cheques were issued on the basis of these GINs and Purchase Vouchers to certain parties. However, no material was actually received from these parties in the stores and used in the production. In short, the assessee company has debited in its books of account certain purchases whereas in actual no such material was received and used in the production. During the course of search, the details of such purchases which were not routed through the stores department and which were distinguished by GIN code 99 by the system installed within the company were identified. A copy of such purchase details is enclosed herewith as Annexure B. On going through these details, it is evident that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
