Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1425 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition u/s 68 - violation of the principles of natural justice - as alleged that no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the impugned notice was issued - HELD THAT:- Reply of the petitioner has been taken into consideration. The impugned notice also records that the books of accounts and some other details furnished by the petitioner were taken into consideration. The impugned notice also finds that on a perusal of the documents, it appears that there was no taxable income as per the copy of the Income Tax Return filed by the petitioner. The impugned notice records that in respect of the modus operandi, business, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of M/s. Winsome Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., there were lack of full-proof documents submitted by the petitioner in respect of the said entity. Accordingly, there was a need for cross-verification. There is no scope of interference with the impugned notice on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was issued two separate notices i.e. 22 March, 2022 and 5 April, 2022. The Reply of the petitioner has been dealt with in the impugned notice. The impugned notice records reasons. The impugned notice also records that due to lack of full proof documents submitted by the petitioner the modus operandi, the genuineness of transactions and the credit worthiness of M/s. Winsome Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. could not be substantiated. There is no illegality nor infirmity in the impugned notice. We lso find that the decision of VISHAL ASHWIN PATEL [2022 (3) TMI 1296 - SUPREME COURT] is distinguishable. Similarly, the decision reported in Diya Capital Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner unreported decision [2022 (5) TMI 1016 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is also inapposite in the facts of the instant case. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Division Bench had arrived at a conclusive finding that the petitioner had not been given reasonable time to file a Reply. Accordingly, there is no scope of interfering with the impugned notice. The petitioner can always by participating in the re-assessment proceeding have the opportunity of taking all points available to the petitioner in accordance with law.
|