9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No. 4 issued a summons under Section 131 (1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), directing the Petitioner to provide documents related to its transactions with one Isprava Vesta (P) Ltd. and associated entities. The Petitioner, on September 7, 2023, submitted its books of accounts, bank statements, and relevant agreements. 2. On February 13, 2024, Respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice under Section 127 (1) of the Act, alleging that incriminating materials were found during search and survey operations conducted at the premises of entities related to the Isprava Group on June 12, 2023. The notice claimed that the Petitioner failed to account for the purchase of a 1671 sq. mt. plot, 'Alex 24K,' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the purchase of the 1671 sq. mt. plot was duly recorded in its accounts and supported by the conveyance deed, which aligns with the circle value. The allegation of unaccounted cash payment is unsubstantiated and cannot form the basis for the proposed jurisdictional transfer. 8. Respondent No. 1 has failed to disclose any incriminating material or evidence justifying the allegations against the Petitioner, despite repeated requests. The absence of credible evidence renders the allegations speculative and unsustainable. 9. The Petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations due to insufficient notice and the failure of Respondent No. 1 to reschedule the hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes not prejudice the petitioner's rights. 15. The jurisdiction transfer was necessitated by a search and seizure operation under Section 131 (1A) of the Act and a notice dated September 5, 2023 was duly served. The petitioner responded but denied any connection with the entity involved in the search. The respondent authority, in its reply dated February 13, 2024 and final order dated October 4, 2024, provided detailed reasons for the transfer. A personal hearing was scheduled for October 14, 2024, but the petitioner failed to appear and the transfer order was passed on October 18, 2024, which was reflected on the ITBA portal. 16. It is further submitted that reliance on Pradeep Kr. (supra) is misplaced as that case involved procedural la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot provided with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations due to inadequate notice for the hearing scheduled on October 14, 2024, coinciding with the Durga Puja holidays. Despite a valid request for rescheduling, Respondent No. 1 failed to accommodate the petitioner's concerns, effectively depriving the petitioner of a fair chance to present its case. Such omissions violate the procedural safeguards enshrined under Section 127 (2), rendering the transfer order invalid. 19. The impugned order also lacked cogent reasoning and failed to address the specific objections raised by the petitioner. The allegations of unaccounted cash payments and irregularities in the transaction were vague and unsupported by any credible evidence. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
