TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file reply to the said notices and upon receipt of a decision from the Assessing Authority, if for any reason it is aggrieved by the said decision, to question the same before the forum provided under the Act. In view of the above discussion, the Principal, CIT, having recorded reasons that certain information found during survey under Section 133A of the Act was not available during the scrutiny assessment, the sanction appears to be in accordance with law. Moreover, the assessment proceeding having already been complete, the petitioners have remedy of preferring an appeal, therefore, both the writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. - WPT No. 69 of 2018, WPT No. 70 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2019 - Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. For Petitioners Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Siddharth Dubey Ms Ananya Kapoor, Ms. Naushina Ali, Adv. with Shri Ajay Kumrani, Advocate For Respondent/UOI Shri Krishna Gopal Yadav, Adv. on behalf of Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Order Prashant Kumar Mishra, 1. This order shall govern disposal of both the writ petitions as the facts and grounds involved are similar. However, for the sake of convenience, the documents filed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re are tangible material as is referred in the order under Section 148 (2), therefore, it is not a case of change of opinion. 7. Further contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue is that re-assessment proceedings having already been done, the petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal, therefore, the present petitions are not maintainable. Learned counsel would next submit that whether or not the income has escaped re-assessment is to be decided by the Assessment Officer and the same cannot be questioned in a writ petition. 8. In support of her contention, learned counsel would refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. v Income-Tax Officer and Ors. (1999) 236 CTR SC 34 : 1999 236 ITR 34 SC). Reference is also made to the Division Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in Lalita Ashwin Jain v Income Tax Officer (2014 SCC Online Guj 2021 : (2014) 363 ITR 343), the Single Bench judgment rendered by this Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal v The Principal, Commissioner of Income Tax Others (WPT No.163 of 2016) and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Sonia Gandhi v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 52(1) and Ors. Other (WPC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse of the regular assessment, while considering the validity of a reassessment notice; it stated as follows: From a combined review of the judgments of this Court, it follows that an Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under Section 147(a) read with Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only if on the basis of specific, reliable and relevant information coming to his possession subsequently, he has reasons, which he must record, to believe that, by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for his assessment during the concluded assessment proceedings, any part of his income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax has escaped assessment. He may start reassessment proceedings either because some fresh facts had come to light which were not previously disclosed or some information with regard to the facts previously disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but actin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ape of infusion of share capital, share premium and share application money by the above three companies, therefore, it is not a case where the reasons recorded were without any basis. Moreover, the reassessment proceedings have already been completed after filing of the writ petitions. 16. In Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case of re-assessment wherein the assessee was issued notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. After the assessment was completed, the assessee, instead of preferring an appeal, preferred writ petition before the High Court and the assessment order was quashed occasioning filing of special leave petition before the Supreme Court by the revenue. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held thus in paragraphs 15 16:- 15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that we have allowed the appellant(s) to withdraw the original writ petition as the said proceedings came to be filed against the show-cause notice. We have repeatedly held that in the absence of factual foundation, it would be impossible to decide matters of this kind. When the doctrine of promissory estoppel is invoked, the doctrine needs to be based on factual data which has not been pleaded. The High Court should not have interfered in the matter. In these cases, the writ petition was filed without reply to even the show-cause notice. In the circumstances, we could have dismissed these civil appeals only on the ground of failure to exhaust statutory remedy, but for the fact that huge investments involving the large number of industries is in issue. 19. In Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani 2013 AIR SCW 4675, it has been held thus :- 14. In our considered view, at the said stage of issuance of the notices under Section 153C, the assessee could have addressed his grievances and explained his stand to the Assessing Authority by filing an appropriate reply to the said notices instead of filing the Writ Petition impugning the said notices. It is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
