9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resumed that the authority did not apply its mind to the objections raised by the petitioner.
We are of the considered opinion that the impugned notice issued u/s 148 to the extent that it reflects information of some other person, shall be rectified by the respondents. The appropriate and correct information available on the Insight Portal as also the Approval accorded by the Specified Authority alongwith the relevant information shall be made available to the petitioner within a week from date to enable him to file his reply/objections which may be considered strictly in accordance with law. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew the clause (d) to the Proviso of the Section 148A of the Act. The Assessing Officer may proceed to get the approval of the Specified Authority for issuing notice u/s. 148 in such cases as per 1st proviso to Sec 148 of the Income-tax Act 1961. In your case, approval under section 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961 has been taken as per provision of section 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961, thereafter notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 23.03.2024. In view of the above discussions, it is held that there is no merit in the objections raised by the assessee. The objections are therefore rejected as discussed in above paras and the objections raised against issuing notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 are disposed of accordingly. The reopening of assessment by way of notice issue u/s 148 is considered lawfully valid and justified. Further, it may also be noted that the reopening of assessment is not the final outcome of the re-assessment proceedings. It is just the initiation of the proceedings and as regards to the establishment of the escapement income or otherwise will be based on the facts and submissions made during the course of the proceedings for which the reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Jewels Private Limited vs. ACIT" decided on 22.12.2022 and W.P.(C) 15387/2022 titled "The Boeing Company vs. UOI & Ors." decided on 17.11.2022, wherein this Court had set aside the notice impugned therein issued under section 148 of the Act and granted a fresh opportunity to respondents to provide information/material which formed the basis for triggering the assessment or reassessment. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are partly persuaded by the submission of the petitioner and find the contentions urged on behalf of the respondents unpersuasive. 10. In a matter of this nature, it would be relevant to note the dates on which various procedures were undertaken by the respondents before we examine the applicability of various judgements which have been relied upon by both parties. 11. At the first instance, it would be pertinent to note that the Insight Portal of the respondents pertaining to the petitioner for the Financial Year (FY) 2019-20 (relevant Assessment Year being "AY 2020-21") reflected the following information: "On perusal of the reply of the assessee as well as his ITR & 26AS it has been observed that: (i) SFT-012(R) - 1,00,00,000:- Duly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was satisfied that the said information is suggestive of the income escaping assessment to tax. It is apparent that the information annexed to the impugned notice pertains to some other assessee and not the petitioner. It is this aspect which the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised to urge that the notice under section 148 as well as the order dated 03.02.2025 impugned herein ought to be quashed and set aside. 14. From the above facts noted, it is manifest that the Insight Portal revealed information pertaining to the petitioner in respect of the FY 2019-20 corresponding to the AY 2020-21. It is reflected in the remarks column that the cash deposit to the extent of Rs. 22,44,647/- is unverified on account of the assessee having failed to submit any valid justification or satisfactory documentary evidences for the same, requiring further verification. Accordingly the case was reported for e-Verification. A perusal of the approval accorded by the Specified Authority on 22.03.2024 and the Annexure attached thereto containing the information also reveals that the same pertains to the petitioner for AY 2020-21 and the quantum of income escaping assessment to tax, also is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This however, shall not save the impugned order dated 03.02.2025. 17. Ergo, while we have no hesitation in quashing the impugned order dated 03.02.2025, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under section 148 of the Act, to the extent that it reflects information of some other person, shall be rectified by the respondents. The appropriate and correct information available on the Insight Portal as also the Approval accorded by the Specified Authority alongwith the relevant information shall be made available to the petitioner within a week from date to enable him to file his reply/objections which may be considered strictly in accordance with law. 18. The aforesaid directions are in accord with the ratio laid down in Benaifer Vispi Patel (supra) except to the departure from completely quashing the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, having regard to the aforenoted distinction on facts coupled with provisions of section 292B of the Act. The judgements relied upon by the respondents are not applicable to the facts of this case inasmuch as the ratio in both the judgements are rendered in cases involving the procedure prescribed u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
