9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 'IT Act'). 3. The petitioner had filed the Returns of Income on 05.03.2018, admitting the Gross Income of Rs. 57,47,468/- and Net Taxable/Total Income of Rs. 55,67,270/-. Meanwhile, a search was conducted at the residence of one N.Viswanathan, Director of SLN Coffee Pvt. Ltd. on 26.04.2017 under Section 132(A) of the IT Act. 4. During the said search, several documents were seized, including the a Sale Agreement dated 28.09.2016 pertaining to the sale of a vacant house plot standing in the name of the said N.Viswanathan, Director of SLN Coffee Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner has resigned on 30.11.2016 from SLN Coffee Pvt. Ltd. i.e., almost two months after the said Sale Agreement dated 28.09.2016, prior to the search that was conducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57 cents (13,540.852 sq.ft.) comprised in Survey No.51(IA) (part) situated at No.43, Padur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District bearing the plot, being bounded on the East by Plot No.74E, West by 24 feet wide road, North by Plot No.104B and South by Plot No.104D within the Sub- Registration District of Thirupporur and Registration District of Chengalpattu and within the limits of Padur Panchayat and Thirupporur Panchayat Union. 9. In terms of the aforesaid Sale Agreement, the petitioner had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,77,50,000/-, out of which, a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- was to be paid in the form of cheque and the balance of Rs. 1,27,50,000/- by way of cash. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that after receiving the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of Section 153B of the IT Act, the time for completing the assessment would actually get barred only on 31.12.2022. The impugned Assessment Order from a notice issued by the Assessing Officer on 12.07.2021. It is also submitted that the petitioner was issued with several notices both under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) of the IT Act. 14. It is submitted that for the first time, the respondent vide Notice dated 30.11.2021 under Section 142(1) of the IT Act, informed the petitioner about the aforesaid Sale Agreement dated 28.09.2016, wherein, the petitioner was called upon to furnish an explanation regarding the sources of Rs. 1,27,50,000/- with admissible documentary evidences. 15. It is further submitted that within thirty days or there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 106 ITR 1 (SC). (ii) B.Kubendran Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai reported in (2021) 126 Taxmann.com 107 (Madras). (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta reported in (2008) 303 ITR 95 (Delhi). (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kanubhai Maganlal Patel reported in (2017) 79 Taxmann.com 257 (Gujarat). 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Assessment Order is manually signed, though all the previous communications have been signed electronically. 21. It is submitted that the impugned Assessment Order would have been passed after 31.12.2021 as is evident from the fact that it was sent by registered post on 04.01.2022 and received by the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment and there are no records to show that the petitioner has initiated any proceedings to recover the amount paid by the said N.Viswanathan, Director of SLN Coffee Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, on this count also, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 26. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent also submitted the fact that the execution of the aforesaid Sale Agreement is not denied though the payment alone is denied. Therefore, the question of entertaining cross-examination of N.Viswanathan, Director of SLN Coffee Pvt. Ltd. does not arise. 27. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the respondent and I have perused t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued extending the limitation. 31. Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned Assessment Order was passed beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, the objection of the petitioner to the impugned Assessment Order is time-barred and without jurisdiction is over ruled. 32. At the same time, it is evident that the petitioner has co-operated with the respondent by filing reply to the various notices mentioned above and had also requested for cross examination of said N.Viswanathan, Director of SLN Coffee Pvt. Ltd. However, the petitioner's request has been rejected by e-mail dated 29.12.2021, followed by the impugned Assessment Order dated 30.12.2021. 33. It is also evident that the impugned Assessment Order has been passed in hurry to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
