TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his writ petition and the same is dismissed. The order of re-assessment dated 29.11.2017 thus stands revived in the light of the rejection of the objections of the petitioner dated 19.02.2018. The petitioner seeks and is granted liberty to challenge the order of re-assessment dated 29.11.2017 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Since the petitioner has been litigating against the proceedings for re-assessment from 19.12.2017 when it filed the first writ petition challenging the order of reassessment, the appeal shall be received by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), if filed within two weeks from today, without reference to limitation. - WP. No.6103 of 2018 And WMP. Nos.7522 & 75234 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 21-3-2019 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017. The writ petition was disposed on 21.12.2017 directing the Assessing Officer to furnish the reasons for re-opening and granting the petitioner fifteen days time to submit his objections thereto, in line with the procedure set out in this case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. Income Tax Officer [(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)]. The respondent was directed to pass a speaking order and communicate the same within a period of two (2) weeks to the petitioner. The assessment was however not set aside. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner has been furnished reasons for re-opening and filed objections thereto which have been rejected vide order dated 19.02.2018. It is as against the aforesaid order that the petitioner is before thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r verification by the DDIT, the firm M/s.Sha Rikhabdas Madaji Co. explained the sources for the payments of ₹ 1.60 crores to Shri Vinith K Bhansali as loan of ₹ 1.75 crores received from M/s.Balaji Reality, Indore. No confirmation or any other evidence was produced before the Investigation Wing. On verification from the ITD System, it is found that the assessee firm filed its return of income for Asst. Year 2010- 11 on 22.03.2013 admitting a total income of ₹ 7,630/-. On verification of the Part A-BS of the return of income filed the secured loan was shown as Nil and unsecured loan was shown as ₹ 1,49,430/-. Hence, I have reason to believe that the transaction in respect of the sum of ₹ 1.60 crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orded were therefore at best a change of opinion based on suspicion and surmises. 17. It is further submitted by Mr Monga that the notice under Section 148 of the Act cannot be issued for the purpose of verification of the material already available with the authorities. Mr. Monga placed reliance on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 187 Taxman 312 (SC), and decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Orient Craft Limited(2013)354 ITR 536 (Del), Mohan Gupta (HUF) v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del) , Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tupperware India (P) Ltd. (2016) 236 Taxman 494 (Del), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Batra Bhatta Company (2010) 321 ITR 526 (D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
