TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by the Petitioner, while disposing of the objections, the Respondent Officer did not state that the second page of the Note was not available. As in light of this factual position, the argument of the Petitioner that the impugned notice and the order proceeds on the erroneous factual ground, without looking at the relevant page, will have to be accepted. Since the foundation of the Reasons for reopening the assessment on facts, apart from various other legal challenges that arise, does not survive, the impugned notice and consequent order will have to be quashed and set aside. - WRIT PETITION NO. 1414 OF 2022 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2022 - NITIN JAMDAR N.R. BORKAR, JJ. Mr. Tanmay M. Phadke for the Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent No.1 issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 30 March 2021 in respect of the assessment year 2014-2015 and asked the Petitioner to file a return of income. The Petitioner filed a return of income on 12 April 2021, declaring total income at Rs.5003640/- and sought reasons for issuing the notice by letter dated 27 May 2021. The reasons were furnished to the Petitioner on 26 November 2021. In the reasons, it was stated that the Petitioner had claimed an excess amount of deduction of Rs.74436332/-, which were required to be disallowed as details of expenses in annexure amounted to only Rs.1271375/-. The Petitioner filed objections by letters dated 2 December 2021 and 8 December 2021. The Petitioner sought to point out that Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rranted. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that apart from other legal issues, the impugned notice and order proceed on an entirely erroneous factual position. The learned Counsel submitted that the second page to Note 15 of the financials was not looked at at all by the Respondents. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Note 15 had two pages; one page gave details about Rs.1271375/- and the second page was regarding Rs.74436332/-. The learned Counsel submitted that the second page is entirely omitted from consideration. The learned Counsel for the Respondent Revenue sought to argue that the case is sought to be reopened on the audit objection and the Assessing Officer and the Audit Officer could not ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment record that figure of only Rs.1271375/- could be seen. It is nowhere stated that, which is sought to be contended now, the second page of Note-15 was not part of the assessment record. Furthermore, what is sequator of this position is not explained as to how the second page came to be missed. Even when this fact was pointed out by the Petitioner, while disposing of the objections, the Respondent Officer did not state that the second page of the Note was not available. 9. According to us, in light of this factual position, the argument of the Petitioner that the impugned notice and the order proceeds on the erroneous factual ground, without looking at the relevant page, will have to be accepted. Since the foundation of the Reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
