TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of petitioner s objection against the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act before issuance of notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act does not arise and the Assessing Officer after not receiving any objection, having no option, has rightly proceeded with the impugned reassessment proceedings by issuing notices under Section 142 (1) of the Act from time to time and the petitioner himself actively participated in the impugned assessment proceedings by complying with the aforesaid notices under Section 142 (1) of the Act and petitioner himself repeatedly requested the Assessing Officer to complete the impugned reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act which are all matters of record, has rightly completed the assessment and passed the final assessment order which is appealable under the statute. - Decided against assessee. - WPO 2006 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 20-5-2022 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN For the Petitioner :- Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. Anujit Mookherji, Adv. Mr. Piyal Gupta, Adv. For the Respondent :- Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv. MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J. The Court: Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. In this Writ Petition pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid impugned notice and proceeding on or after receiving the aforesaid notice under Section 148 of the Act and the recorded reason rather petitioner himself had requested the Assessing Officer to complete the impugned reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. It appears from record that after compliance of the aforesaid impugned notice under Section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 6th December, 2021, by the petitioner, another notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act was issued on 14th December, 2021, asking the petitioner to furnish relevant accounts and documents referred therein on or before 20th December, 2021, as appears from Page 54 of the Writ Petition. Petitioner complied with the aforesaid second notice also under Section 142 (1) of the Act dated 14th December, 2021 through the same authorised representative by its letter dated 20th December, 2021 as appears at Page 60 of the Writ Petition and on perusal of the same I find that even on or before 22nd December, 2021 nowhere petitioner had objected to the issuance of the aforesaid impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act or initiation of the impugned proceeding under Section 147 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer to complete the impugned reassessment proceeding on the basis of the aforesaid notice under Section 148 of the Act. It appears from Page 105 of the Writ Petition that petitioner s earlier authorised representative Murarka Associates wrote another letter/representation on 28th March, 2022 against the aforesaid show-cause notice dated 12th March, 2022, and on perusal of the same it appears that the petitioner himself again requested the Assessing Officer to complete the impugned reassessment proceedings on the basis of impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act by stating that Thus, the proceeding u/s 148 must be completed without any adverse remarks on the assessee and no addition should be made . It appears from Pages 144 and 145 of the Writ Petition that final assessment order under Section 147/143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 31st March, 2022, raising a demand of Rs. 8,57,19,806/-. After receiving the impugned final assessment order under Section 147/143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31st March, 2022, and after actively participating in the impugned reassessment proceedings throughout without challenging the impugned notice u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice under Section 148 of the Act after receiving recorded reason and in view of the conduct of the petitioner that he himself has actively participated in the impugned reassessment proceeding from the time after receiving the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act and recorded reason till the date of passing of final impugned assessment order by responding to three notices under Section 142 (1) of the Act from time to time subsequent to the issuance of notices under Section 148 (1) of the Act and himself requesting the Assessing Officer concerned to complete the reassessment proceeding on the basis of impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act which are matters of record. Respondents submit that the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (supra) and two other decisions relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable and not applicable to the case of the petitioner in view of exceptional facts and circumstances involve in the instant case as appears from record. Considering the submission of the parties, facts and circumstances of the case as appears from record and decisions relied upon by the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceeding which are matters of record and have been discussed above in detail. Considering the relevant records annexed to the Writ Petition by the petitioner himself and the conduct of the petitioner by way of waiving his right to file any objection against the impugned notice immediately after receiving the recorded reason and actively participating in the impugned proceeding and specifically repeatedly requesting the Assessing Officer to complete the impugned reassessment proceeding, I am of the considered view that the Assessing Officer concerned has rightly proceeded with the impugned reassessment proceeding and passed the impugned assessment order. In my considered opinion none of the judgments cited by the petitioner is applicable to the instant case in view of exceptional facts and circumstances involved in this Writ Petition which have been elaborately discussed above in detail. Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (supra) upon which petitioner has relied, in the facts and circumstances of the case is not applicable to the present case and rather it goes against the petitioner since in the said judgment, ratio is that the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
