9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts are as under:- (a). Petitioner is a Private Limited Company. For the assessment year 2012-13, the petitioner had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 71.72 crore (rounded off). This return was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer during which information was received by the Assessing Officer from the investigation made, conveying that the petitioner company had obtained bogus purchase bills / accommodation entries from one Shri. Bhanwarlal Jain and group entities. The Assessing Officer passed order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) on 9.2.2016 in which he had added a sum of Rs. 45.14 lacs (rounded off) to the total income of the assessee arrived by applying profi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed u/s. 69C of the Act. It is evident that by not offering the whole of the amount of bogus purchase of Rs. 4,90,65,735/- to tax, the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for AY 2012-13. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 4,90,65,735/- has escaped assessment and is to be brought to tax in the hands of M/s. Dimexon Diamons Ltd for A.Y. 2012-13." (c). Upon being supplied the reasons, the petitioner raised objections to the notice of reopening of assessment under letter dated 9.10.2018. Said objections were rejected by the Assessing Officer on 15.11.2018. Copy of this order was received by the petitioner on 21.11.2018. The Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it is in the process of challenging the impugned notice. In the above circumstances, we do not relegate the petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy available under the Act but exercise our writ jurisdiction and set aside the impugned order dated 12.12.2018 as being without jurisdiction. Therefore, we are now at the pre-assessment order stage. 5. On merits of the petitioner's challenge to the impugned notice, we may recall that the factum of the petitioner being beneficiary of bogus purchase bills and accommodation entries was within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer even during the original scrutiny assessment. He therefore, passed the order of assessment in which he added a sum of Rs. 45.14 lacs to the income of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
