TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs.75 crores has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2018-2019, within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act, the authority considered the present case to be a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2018-2019. In the present case, the petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing by giving notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, to which he gave a detailed reply and thereafter detailed order under Section 148A(d) has been passed. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Meena vs. Union of India Ors. [ 2023 (2) TMI 1134 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] held that in the matter of challenge to order passed u/s 148A followed by issuing notice u/s148 of the Act, the petitioner had not alleged any procedural impropriety, irregularity or violation of statutory provisions in the matter of initiation of proceedings or passing of any order under Section 148A(d) - Division Bench taking into consideration the settled legal position, dismissed the petition giving liberty to the writ petitioner to avail the remedy in the proceedings subsequent to notice under Section 148 of the Act. Thus no case is made out for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the petitioner is that merely because a search and survey was conducted on M/s. APCO Infratech Private Limited, it could not provide a basis for the respondents to re-open assessment by invoking provisions contained under Section 148A and 148 of the Act. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though the petitioner was subjected to scrutiny assessment and the original order of assessment was passed on 15.07.2021 on the basis of the declared income of Rs.42.44 crores, subsequent thereto, during a search and survey conducted on M/s. APCO Infratech Private Limited, it was prima facie revealed that various transactions between the petitioner and M/s. APCO Infratech Private Limited were found to be in the nature of circular transactions by engaging in raising fake invoices. Therefore, power under section 148A of the Act was invoked, opportunity of hearing was afforded and a detailed order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed after due consideration of the reply of the petitioner. 6. In the present case, what we find is that though initially at the time of scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act by the assessing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raising turn over limit and garnering better credit rating. 8. The order further reveals that the petitioner s office was covered under Section 133A of the Act and statement of one of its Director was recorded. He was asked for the assessment year 2017-2018 of M/s. APCO Infratech Private Limited in the books of the petitioner whereby M/s. APCO Infratech Private Limited is debited to the tune of Rs.79.20 crores and a sum of Rs.82.50 crores is credited. Though, stand of there being a sub-contract was raised, no documentary evidence in support of claim of executing works in compliance to execute the sub-contracts could be produced despite an opportunity was granted. 9. In the aforesaid background, the authority recorded that as the petitioner-assessee has not produced any satisfactory documentary evidence in support of executing the sub-contracts made between the petitioner M/s. Chetak Enterprises Limited and M/s. APCO Infratech Private Limited, the assessee having also failed to produce bills and vouchers with regard to transactions with M/s. APCO Infotech Private Limited, a case of reopening of assessment is made out. We, thus, find that the material information collected by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessing authority. 12. In 'Rasulji Buxji Kathawala vs. Income Tax Commissioner, Delhi and another' (Civil Writ No.44 of 1955, dated 2.4.1956) while dealing with the similar situation under the 1922 Act, Division Bench of this Court held that But where as in this case no part of the Act is being attacked, there is, in our opinion, no justification for us to intervene at this stage when other remedies which arc not necessarily onerous are still open to the applicant under the Act. We, therefore, refuse to intervene at this stage in this case, and leave it to the applicant to pursue his remedies under the Income-tax Act so far as the question of his charge-ability to income-tax under the Act, or other matters are concerned. 13. While dealing with the similar situation under the old Act i.e. Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 'Lachhman Das Nayar and others vs. Hans Raj Puri, Income-Tax Officer, Amritsar and others, 1953 AIR (P H) 55 , held that - An examination of the scheme of the Act and the words used in section 34 of the Act and the various cases that I have referred to above show that the legi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage, no assessment order has been passed and it has only been observed that it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. In fact, the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. Vs. Chhabil Das Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 has held that as the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides complete machinery for assessment/ reassessment of tax, assessee is not permitted to abandon that machinery and invoke jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226. 16. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Meena vs. Union of India Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.447/2023, decided on 15.02.2023] held that in the matter of challenge to order passed under Section 148A of the Act followed by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, the petitioner had not alleged any procedural impropriety, irregularity or violation of statutory provisions in the matter of initiation of proceedings or passing of any order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The Division Bench relied upon the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Anshul Jain vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [CWP No.10219/2022, decided on 02.06.2022] . It was he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
