Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 297 - HC - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - monetary requirement for reopening assessment - unexplained cash credit under Section 68 - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the condition precedent of an asset in the form of Rs.50 lakhs is not be attracted to the present case, as the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act had been issued on 17th March, 2022 i.e. within three years of the assessment year sought to be assessed, namely, 2018-19 and Section 148A(d) order as well as Section 148 notice issued on 31st March, 2022 was within prescribed time. The said Section 148 notice and the order passed under Section 148A(d) were set aside by this Court on the petition of the assessee vide order dated 27th May, 2022 and the matter was remanded to the AO to decide the matter in time bound manner. The impugned Section 148 notice dated 23rd July, 2022 has been passed by the Assessing Officer within the time granted by the Court and, therefore, the said notice cannot be considered time barred as sought to be alleged by the Petitioner. This Court is of the view that the issue whether the transaction was executed by the Petitioner with Nitin Trading Company, a proprietorship of Mr. Aman Bhalla or Mr. Dev Narayan, cannot be adjudicated upon in writ proceedings and that too, when the assessment proceedings are pending. This Court is also of the view that if the allegations in the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act are correct, then the Petitioner’s defence that the transaction had already been subjected to tax is not correct inasmuch as the sale would be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and the full value would be liable to tax. The fact that a scrutiny assessment had been undertaken in the present case would not come to the Petitioner’s rescue, as the Respondents had subsequently recieved information that one of the parties with whom the Petitioner had transacted was an alleged entry operator-which fact was not known to the revenue when the scrutiny assessment was carried out. WP dismissed.
|