Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 725 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - cash deposits during demonetization period - notice issued u/s 148A(b) the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of suspicious transactions flagged by the FIU [Financial Intelligence Unit] - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is registered as a non-scheduled Urban Cooperative bank who ‘maintained current accounts with Chandni Chowk, Shakarpur and Karkardooma Branches, New Delhi had deposited huge cash during the period from 01st April, 2016 to 31st December, 2016’. From the Search Assessment order under Section 153A it is not clear whether these deposits were verified by the Assessing Officer or not. In fact, the Assessment Order passed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) is an order passed pursuant to the search, wherein it seems only the documents seized during the search were considered. The said order does not reveal that the aspect of cash deposits was specifically examined by the Assessing Officer. As far as non-consideration of petitioner’s reply is considered, it is settled law that ‘principle of natural justice is no unruly horse and no lurking land mine’ as held by Mr.Justice Krishna Iyer in Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines Vs. Ramjee [1977 (2) TMI 140 - SUPREME COURT]. In fact, in M/s. S. Tikara Vs. State of M.P. & Ors, [1977 (3) TMI 178 - SUPREME COURT] it has been held that the principles of natural justice cannot be petrified or fitted into rigid moulds. They are flexible and turn on the facts and circumstances of each case. Consequently, the questions that arise are whether there has been any unfair deal by the respondent? In the present instance, in view of the allegation of cash deposits during demonetization period, this Court is of the opinion that even if the reply now sought to be relied upon by the petitioner was taken into account, notice under Section 148 of the Act was called for – as a prima facie case of escapement of income was made out. Consequently, no ground for interdicting the reassessment is made out at this stage. Accordingly, the present writ petition along with pending applications is dismissed.
|