9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the clumsy attempt is made by the specified authority to justify granting sanction to reopen the case. On perusal of the contents of the affidavits, it is clear that when the sanction was granted, there was no application of mind on the part of the specified authority and mechanical sanction was granted without referring to the documents and thereafter when the specified authority was called upon to justify the action of the sanction further details are placed on record which cannot be considered at this stage, as we are examining the validity of the impugned action i.e. passing of the order under Section 148A (d) and issuance of the notice under Section 148 to assume the jurisdiction by the respondent Assessing Officer to come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to reopen the assessment or not. Therefore, on perusal of the show-cause notice and the impugned order under Section 148A (d) of the Act, it clearly shows that the assessee has shown the details of the amount as stated in the notice and the order being the investment made by the petitioners since 2013, and therefore there is no question of any escapement of income on face of the impugned notice and order, which would g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investment of Rs. 1,21,92,914/- was out of past remittance made. The petitioner also uploaded several documents comprising of copy of his passport, detail of fixed deposits and renewal of fixed deposits, NRE statement issued by the HSBC Bank from 31.12.2013 to 31.03.2017 and Form 26AS. 3.3. Thereafter, notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act dated 09/11.03.2024 was issued by the respondents as the petitioners did not file return of income for the Assessment Year 2017 18 on the ground that the petitioner did not file return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18, and there is escapement of income of Rs. 1,21,92,914/- and the petitioner was asked to file reply to show-cause notice as to why notice under Section 148 should not be issued. 3.4. The petitioners in response to the notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act filed reply dated 21.03.2024, along with the documents to explain that there is no escapement of income as amount stated in the show-cause notice pertains to the investment made by the petitioners since the year 2013 onwards out of their earnings in the United Kingdom. 3.5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents passed order dated 08.04.2024, under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isclosed about their residential status for the year under consideration as the same was not a material fact as the only requirement sought for reopening was about the amount of Rs. 1,21,92,914/-, which is withdrawn by the petitioner and reflected in the bank statement, which was later on placed by the petitioners by way of another fixed deposit, which is not in dispute as the same is evident from the bank statement placed on record. 4.6. It was therefore submitted that the amount in question for reopening is carried forward investment of the petitioner since 2013, which is not controverted by the respondent Assessing Officer in the impugned order passed under Section 148A (d) of the Act and therefore, the impugned order and the consequent notice for reopening is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8453 of 2024 did not reply the notice under Section 148A (a) of the Act and the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 8544 of 2024 has given a vague reply vis-a-vis their residential status in India for the year under considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion that it is a fit case to reopen the assessment. 6. Considering the submissions made by both the sites, it is pertinent to note that this Court passed the following order on 15.07.2024: 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Umedsingh Bhati for the petitioner and learned senior standing counsel Mr. Varun Patel for the respondent. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Bhati submitted that the impugned order under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) for A.Y. 2017-18 is passed by the Respondent Assessing Officer without due consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner in response to the notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act. 2.1 Learned advocate Mr. Bhati referred to the reply dated 11th March, 2024 of the assessee in detail to point out that the assessee in Special Civil Application No.8453 of 2024 is a British citizenship holder and has invested amount in GBP 1,23,623.70 in the joint NRE Savings Account with HSBC Bank in the year 2013 onwards and the same is reinvested from time-to-time. It was pointed out from the reply that the petitioner has also submitted screenshot of the NRE Savings Bank Account with the reply, however the Assessing Officer, after re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it-in-reply was filed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (I.T.) based on Mumbai on 02.08.2024 and thereafter additional reply was filed on 21.09.2024, placing on record the relevant documents of granting sanction and what has weighed with the authority to grant sanction under Section 148A (d) of the Act to the reopening of the assessment for the year under consideration. 8. On perusal of the both the affidavits, it appears that specified authority has failed to consider the notice issued under Section 148A (b) of the Act, in its proper perspective vis-a-vis the information made available from the inside portal in relation to the reply filed by the petitioner, placing on record the details of the fixed deposits of the petitioners with the HSBC Bank for the year under consideration, which is reflected from the bank statements of the HSBC Bank placed on record. It is submitted that the clumsy attempt is made by the specified authority to justify granting sanction to reopen the case. 9. Be that as it may, on perusal of the contents of the affidavits, it is clear that when the sanction was granted, there was no application of mind on the part of the specified authority and mechanic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced on record at page no.94, which is a statement as on 30.02.2017 from the HSBC bank which was placed on record by the petitioner along with the reply, which clearly shows that there was withdrawal of Rs. 1,21,00,000/- by following five entries Which has again be placed in to fixed deposit of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- along with the details of the fixed deposits in GBP, starting date from 13.02.17 to maturity date to 13.2.2018 of 29085.89 GBP. 29056.42 as principal amount of GBP for five deposits. (ii) It is further observed that as per the bank statement of her bank account No. 10142828-006, there is one debit entry of Rs. 1,22,00,000/-, however the assessee has claimed that she has made 5 FCNR deposits, therefore to substantiate her claim, the assessee has not submitted the documents for the purpose of verification regarding the conversion debit into five different deposits. The above fact is also not correct as stated herein above. The details of deposits are mentioned on the bank statement which is placed on record (page 94 and 95 of the petition), which clearly shows that the GBP of Rs.29056.42 x 5 is the amount of investment made by the petitioner on 13.02.2017, which is equivalent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
