Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (8) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be supplied including complete case proceedings and for personal hearing, which was not given. The Assessing Officer has acted in undue haste. The orders u/s 148A(d) and u/s 148 are set aside. The respondents shall provide all relevant documents that have been asked for by the petitioner in his representation by making payment of necessary fees to the department, within a period of one week from today. The petitioner shall submit his reply within one week, thereafter. A personal hearing shall be given by the AO, and an order u/s 148(d) be passed after considering the submissions made by the petitioner in his reply as also his personal hearing within three weeks, thereafter. - Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra And Hon'ble Shree Prakash .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er on, acquired another shop at Bahoran Tola, Chowk, Lucknow for expansion of their respective businesses. The petitioner and his brother shifted to the new premises at Bahoran Tola, Chowk, Lucknow on 03.02.2020. The respondents initiated search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act at the joint shop of the petitioner at Bahoran Tola, Chowk, Lucknow on 12.02.2020. During the search and seizure operations cash, gold jewellery and silver jewellery were found alongwith loose documents and sheets. The loose documents and sheets were impounded, but the gold and silver were considered stock in trade, and therefore, were not seized. On 23.12.2020, the case of the petitioner was dealt with and a questionnaire was issued to h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion. However, order has been passed by the Respondent under Section 148A(d) of the Act on 20.04.2024 rejecting the reply submitted by the petitioner without providing him copies of Audit Objections and also without providing him opportunity of personal hearing. A notice under Section 148 of the Act has also been issued on the same date on 20.04.2024, proposing reassessment of income. On 06.05.2024, the petitioner again applied for certified copies of the record of assessment proceedings as well as reassessment proceedings. This application was filed alongwith payment of requisite fee, however, no documents have been provided. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by the High Court of Madras (M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... udgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. Commissioner of Income Tax'. However, the said judgment was rendered when there was no such clause as has been inserted with effect from 01.04.2022 in Explanation 1 of Section 148 of the Act. Therefore, in my view, the said judgment is of no relevance to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the provisions have been drastically changed with effect from 01.04.2022, and the audit objection is one of the reasons for re- opening the assessment. If the revenue audit raises an objection that the assessment was not completed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it cannot be treated as a change of opinion because this is 'the statutory .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... all be considered only after the order under Section 148 for reopening of assessment is passed. 12. Learned counsel for the Respondents no. 2 3 has also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Others reported in 2008 (14) SCC 218 and also in the case of Anshul Jain Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in Special Leave to Appeal No. 14823 of 2022 decided on 02.09.2022. 13. We do not dispute the law as settled not only by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vivek Saran Agarwal (Supra), but also by the Supreme Court in the Case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. (Supra) and Anshul Jain (Supra). 14. This Court has not made any observations regarding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates