Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (10) TMI 236

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... its reply the assessee admitted that it had carried out a single transaction of Rs.1,50,00,000/- with M/s Surya Trading Company in the relevant year and clarified that it had no transaction with the entity M/s Mahamaya Trading Company. In the reply furnished on 16 th April, 2021, the assessee annexed its ledger and bank statement which reflects a single transaction with M/s Surya Trading Company during the FY 2012-13. The assessee has not furnished any explanation in the said reply with respect to the purpose of the transaction with the said entity, though, the Department, in its notice dated 13th April, 2021, issued under Section 133(6) of the Act had specifically called upon the assessee to furnish the purpose of the transaction. No docu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... G M E N T MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (Oral): 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26th July, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) and the notice dated 26th July, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act, for the Assessment Year ( AY ) 2013-14. 2. In the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) dated 20th May, 2022, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the Petitioner/assessee was to show cause with respect to information received by the Income Tax Department( Department ) that the assessee is involved in High Value Transactions with Mr. Naveen Sharma [Proprietor of M/s Mahamaya Trading Company and M/s Surya Trading Company ( entities )] and as per the informatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, 2022 SCC Online SC 543 ; and (d) The present proceedings which pertain to AY 2013-14 cannot be reopened due to the proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act (as amended by the Finance Act, 2021). 4. Pertinently, in this reply to the SCN, the assessee did not refer to or offer any explanation qua the transactions undertaken by the assessee with M/s Mahamaya Trading Company and M/s Surya Trading Company. The reply was completely silent on the transaction. 5. The Assessing Officer ( AO ) after considering reply of the assessee dated 3rd June, 2022, observed that no response has been furnished on the merits of the information put to the assessee in the SCN dated 20th May, 2022. With respect to the is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , though on record, have not been considered by the AO while passing the impugned order dated 26th July, 2022 and he therefore, seeks setting aside of the impugned order and the notice, both dated 26th July, 2022. 7. Issue notice. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue appears on advance notice and states that the assessee is a beneficiary of an accommodation entry and the transaction between the assessee and M/s Surya Trading Company is not genuine. The adjudication of the petition involves disputed questions of facts and same cannot be determined in the present proceedings. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused reply dated 3rd June, 2022, filed by the petitioner in response to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ess of providing accommodation entries and the assessee is a beneficiary. The assessee has not placed on record any documents explaining and substantiating the nature of its transaction with M/s Surya Trading Company. 11. The Revenue s contention that assessee is a beneficiary of an accommodation entry from M/s Surya Trading Company and the assessee s contention that it was done in course of business are rival pleas and its determination is a pure question of fact, which will have to be determined by the statutory authorities after appreciation of evidence. A writ petition cannot be maintained to determine the disputed facts and therefore this petition is not maintainable at this interim stage of reassessment proceedings. 12. The Su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates