TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... convenience. If a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. In Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. [ 1997 (12) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] it was inter alia held that at the time of initiating the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, the assessing officer has to only examine whether there is prima facie material on the basis of which the assessment should have been reopened. The Supreme court has held that at this stage the court is only required to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency of the correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the stage. We consider that there was sufficient material on the record for reopening/re-assessment of the case of the petitioner for the concerned assessment year. This court is not making any comment on the merits of the case. The assessee will have complete right to put up his case before the assessing officer. We consider that there is no violation of the principles of the natural justice. The revenue department has followed the procedure prescri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be disallowed as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s Hero Cycle Pvt. Ltd vs. C.I.T., 379 ITR 347 . The petitioner has further stated that where there is a common overdraft account in which interest free funds as well as income like rent, Interest, etc is also deposited in such cases interest is not to be disallowed, where the amount withdrawn is lesser than the capital and interest refund. 7. The department in the counter affidavit has stated that the Assessing Officer received a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) folder in the case of the petitioner from the Investigation Wing, Delhi of the Income Tax Department. Upon perusal and examination of the same and enquiries there under, it was revealed that the petitioner had paid a significant sum of Rs.1.5 crores on behalf of his son Sh.Gaurav Babbar, as consideration towards the purchase of the property located at B-8/3, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi on 03.11.2009. The above fact was admitted by the petitioner vide his submissions dated 31.07.2013 before the ADIT (Inv), Unit II (3), New Delhi. It has further been stated that the bank statement pertaining to bank account No.001702000003998 maintained with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the OD/CC bank account were being siphoned off by the petitioner to his son interest-free and fraudulent claims of interest expenses was being claimed to reduce the petitioner s taxable income and unlawfully evade income tax due under the Act. 12. The department has stated that the accounts reveal a modus operandi of use of false/colourable loan transactions with the petitioner to claim interest expenses as false revenue expenses against taxable business income to evade taxes under the Act. 13. The department has stated that on the basis of the said material facts and evidence, a notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2017 was lawfully sent to the petitioner for the subject Assessment Year which was followed by a notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act. The reasons for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act as recorded prior to the same, was also sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 09.08.2017 and thereafter the petitioner was provided with an opportunity on 12.09.2017 to inspect the relevant file containing the petitioner s records and the same was duly availed of. The objections as raised by the petitioner were disposed of by a well-reasoned order dated 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bjections. The Assessing officer vide communication dated 09.08.2017 provided the petitioner with the copy of the reasons as recorded by the Assessing officer for reopening of the case. The reasons being recorded by the Assessing officer were quite detailed and self-explanatory. It was mentioned in the reasons that the entire amount given to his son by the petitioner, the interest has not been charged whereas the cash credit bank account from which amount was transferred to his son, the assessee had paid interest @ 14.33 per annum. The interest has been claimed by the assesse as revenue expenses which reduced taxable income of assessee for the year under consideration. 19. As on 01.04.2009, the assessee had shown loan outstanding to his son at Rs.3,64,519/- and during the year under consideration, the assesse had given amount of Rs.1,64,51,600/- to his son out of which amount of Rs.13,40,000/- was received back with the remaining closing balance of Rs.1,54,76,119/-. 20. The objections were filed by the petitioner in which the case of the petitioner as discussed hereinabove was reiterated. The objections were duly disposed of by the Assessing officer vide order dated 30.10.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
