9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mahanivesh is a penny scrip and the trade was undertaken between limited persons at pre-determined prices. It has come on record that the detailed report of the Investigation Wing on the suspicious trading activity of Mahanivesh was not provided to the petitioner. AO should have provided this Report in the first instance with the notice issued u/s 148A(b), especially when the assessee had requested for this information in her reply dated 31st May, 2022. We, therefore, find merit in the submission of the petitioner that the assessee has been denied an effective opportunity to answer the findings made in the Report with respect to the transactions undertaken by the assessee with Allied Nippon Limited and Lawrence Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. We set aside the order issued u/s 148A(d) and notice issued u/s 148 with a direction to the petitioner to file its additional reply, responding to the findings of the Report within two weeks. AO shall after considering the reply of the petitioner pass an order u/s 148A(b) within a period of eight weeks thereafter, in accordance with law. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA For the Appellant : Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resulting in the said Long Term Capital Gain ( LTCG ) has been provided to the petitioner in contravention of the proviso to Section 148 of the Act. He states that the petitioner vide reply dated 31st May, 2022 and 25th August, 2022 objected to the issue of the impugned notice dated 30th June, 2022 and initiation of the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act on various grounds including the absence of information against the petitioner suggesting that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. He states that the petitioner verily believes that no information exists which expressly links the present assessee to any enquiry undertaken against Mahanivesh (India) Limited ( Mahanivesh ) with respect to the financial transaction in the latter s scrip. 5. He states that the respondent vide its impugned order has rejected the petitioner s objection on jurisdictional error and it is silent with respect to the petitioner s objection with respect to absence of information. He states that since the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is based on no substantial information and the proceedings are time barred, the notice issued under Section 148 along with the cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y not provided to the petitioner along with notice dated 17th May, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act and therefore, the petitioner was denied the opportunity to explain the transactions undertaken by her with the two entities i.e. Allied Nippon Limited and Lawrence Cold Storage Private Limited. He states that further a perusal of the Report does not in any manner suggest that the petitioner had any role in either influencing the rigging of the closing price of the scrip or that she was a party to any bogus transactions. 10. He states that the petitioner has not denied that she traded in the scrip of Mahanivesh but the petitioner denies that the transactions undertaken by her are bogus. 11. The petitioner further states that paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the impugned order dated 30th June, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act does not disclose any live link between the information received and its connection with the petitioner and therefore, the initiation of the present proceedings is without legal jurisdiction. He relies upon the judgment dated 26th March, 2021 of this court in W.P.(C) No. 12544/2018 in Synfonia Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-22 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner does not dispute the said facts, consequently, the reassessment notice dated 29th June, 2021, which has been issued within the extended period of limitation is not time barred. 14. In this case as well, the petitioner admittedly was served with a re- assessment notice dated 19th April, 2021 within the extended period of limitation and therefore, the first proviso of Section 149 (as amended by Finance Act, 2021) is not attracted in the facts of this case. Further, the income alleged to have escaped assessment is more than Rs. 50 Lakhs and therefore, the rigour of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act (as amended by Finance Act, 2021) is satisfied. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner s sole argument was that the notice under section 148A(b) and the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) does not show any live link between the information received and formation of belief. We cannot accept this contention of the assessee as both the notice under Section 148A(b) and the notice under Section 148A(d) specifically identify the financial transactions undertaken by the petitioner in respect of Mahanivesh. The financial value of the transaction is also expressly provided in the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
