9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the first respondent dated 17.7.2007 wherein and by which notice was given to reopen the assessment for the year 2000-2001. It is stated in the impugned order that they had received information from the Enforcement Directorate through proper channel which shows possible inflation of purchases on certain items. The following three information are furnished in the impugned order. "(i) Transaction between M/s SIIL and Oasis International for import of drawings and designs Standard Chartered Bank reported that SIIL have failed to file the bills of entry. The charges have been corroborated by examining the bills of lading from BPT which prove that imports were not lifted by the party and were auctioned by BPT for an amount of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditional affidavit dated 01.9.2007 was also filed by them stating that the copy of the order obtaining previous sanction by Commissioner of Income Tax was not provided as required under Section 151 of the Act and it is mandatory to have the prior sanction. 5. Interim stay was granted on 14.9.2007 and it was continued till 19.11.2007 against which only, the respondents have entered appearance. 6. The respondents have filed a counter dated 13.9.2007 stating that the information received from Enforcement Directorate relates to the assessment year 2000-2001 and the previous sanction of the Commissioner was also obtained. It is also stated in the order dated 31.8.2007 issued to the writ petitioner that the previous san ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any assistance to the petitioner. 9. The facts of the present case is totally different. In the present case, the definite stand of the Department is that previous sanction from the Commissioner of Income Tax was obtained and credible information received relates to the year 2000-2001. It was also stated that an adjudication order dated 22.8.2007 was already passed and despatched to the petitioner and it is the petitioner, who did not receive the same. 10. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court relating to GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [(2003) 259 ITR 19] wherein in paragraph 5, it was observed as follows: Para 5: "We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
