TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns u/s 148. Insofar as the petitioner s prayer that the respondent Department should lay down binding guidelines for proper examination of tax evasion complaints by field officers, prior to taking action on such complaints is concerned, in our view, the decision rendered in Scan Holding (P) Ltd. [ 2018 (1) TMI 942 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] lays down sufficient guidelines and the said decision is binding on all the Revenue Authorities. In respect of the grievance of the petitioner, that the order dated 18.12.2018 is contemptuous, since it has allegedly been passed in breach in Scan Holding (P) Ltd. (supra), it shall be open to the petitioner, if he is so advised, to take appropriate proceedings in that respect independently. - W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court on 08.01.2018 by a judgment reported as Scan Holding (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (2018) 402 ITR 290 (Delhi). The Court set aside the order dated 11.09.2015, whereby the objections preferred to the notice issued to the petitioner assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act had been disposed of, and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioner or its authorised representative, without being influenced by the earlier order dated 11.09.2015, or the order passed by the Court. The Court had directed in paragraphs 16 17 as follows: 16. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 11th September, 2015 with a direction of remand to the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment, and it was contended that the petitioner never appeared as directed by the Court. It appears that the Assessing Officer issued notices on 30.09.2018, 16.10.2018, 16.11.2018, 22.11.2018 03.12.2018 to the petitioner requisitioning details for framing of assessment. At that stage, the petitioner assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and demanded a hearing and a speaking order on its objections to issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner had already preferred its objections on 11.06.2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer heard the petitioner on the said objections, and vide order dated 18.12.2018 rejected those objections. The Assessing Officer thereafter proceeded to pass the assessment order dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the respondent Department should lay down binding guidelines for proper examination of tax evasion complaints by field officers, prior to taking action on such complaints is concerned, in our view, the decision rendered in Scan Holding (P) Ltd. (supra) lays down sufficient guidelines and the said decision is binding on all the Revenue Authorities. 9. In respect of the grievance of the petitioner, that the order dated 18.12.2018 is contemptuous, since it has allegedly been passed in breach of the decision of this Court in Scan Holding (P) Ltd. (supra), it shall be open to the petitioner, if he is so advised, to take appropriate proceedings in that respect independently. 10. We, however, make it clear that we have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
