TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt notices that for both AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06, the note discloses the source of the information, i.e. DRI Local Unit at Jaipur, sending information based upon the Commissioner of Central Excise’s investigations. To require the Revenue to disclose further details regarding the nature of documents or contents thereof would be virtually rewriting the conditions in section 147. After all, Section 147 merely authorises the issuance of notice to reopen with conditions. If the Court were to dictate the manner and contents of what is to be written, the statutory conditions would be added as it were. In this context, it needs to be emphasized that the court would interpret the statute as they stand in their own terms, but at the same time being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows: AY 2003-04 Return declaring loss of ₹ 1,99,75,520/- was filed by assessee on 22.11.2003. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 24.03.2006 at a total loss of ₹ 1,24,75,520/-. Information was received from DRI. Regional Unit Jaipur and passed on this office that Central Excise Commissioner, Jaipur 1 detected bogus purchase made by assessee company from M/s. Kashish Impex Put. Ltd. and the information received for the period 1 7.9.02 to 20.05.05 and the amount of purchases (bogus) for the period under consideration amounted to ₹ 1.64 Crores. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income to the tune of ₹ 1.64 Crores has escaped taxation. AY 2004-05 Return declarin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals preferred by it. The Revenue approached the ITAT which was of the opinion that having regard to the reasons to believe that the Revenue relied upon, valid reassessments could not be completed. In other words, it was stated that the reasons recorded were insufficient for a legal and valid reassessment proceedings. In this, the ITAT relied upon Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. CIT (Delhi) 2009 (308) ITR 38 and WEL Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. Anr. v. ITO 2009 (308) ITR 22. 3. At the outset, it is brought to our notice that the impugned order has been issued wrongly inasmuch as the reassessment notice for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06 were not issued under proviso to Section 147(1). These assessments were completed under Section 143(3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. Elaborating on this, learned counsel submitted that in scrutiny assessments, the authorisation is seen as a safeguard to protect the assessee from arbitrary exercise of powers by the AO. 7. In the present case, no application of mind by the higher authority while granting permission resulted in an invalid notice under Section 147. Though the ITAT granted relief, it did not record any reasons for it. In these circumstances, the order was rectified and the reasons recorded on 05.01.2017. It is submitted that in all cases, especially for AY 2003-04, the materials relied upon, i.e. the information with respect to the alleged bogus transaction was one. Learned counsel points out that the details of the Commissioner of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference to tangible material outside the record, i.e. information based upon the investigation of the Commissioner of Central Excise with respect to the purchases made by the assesses. However, as far as the second issue is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that even the rectified order does not address the issues squarely. Thus, arguendo such arguments could be validly raised. At the same time, the court notices that for both AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06, the note discloses the source of the information, i.e. DRI Local Unit at Jaipur, sending information based upon the Commissioner of Central Excise s investigations. To require the Revenue to disclose further details regarding the nature of documents or contents thereof would be virt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
