9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king interim relief] 2. This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 26.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), and the consequential notice of even date i.e., 26.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act']. Besides this, challenge is also laid to the show-cause notice dated 15.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 2.1 The impugned notices and order concern Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 3. Although the order and the show cause notice, to say the least, lack an element of clarity, Mr Vipul Aggarwal, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, has tried to explain, as to what the Assessing Officer (AO) sought to convey via the impugned notices and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year under consideration. Further, it is observed that there is huge increase of Rs 24,95,00,000/-in Authorised Share Capital of the company over the year. This implies that assessee has raised fund through bogus share capital and subsequently made bogus purchases, which further strengthen the information received that assessee has undergone transaction of Rs 20,43,99,525/- with M/s RCI Industries and Technologies Limited. 4. It has been noticed that an amount of Rs. 20,43,99,525/- in AY. 2018-19 is unverified. Therefore, you are show caused why the proceedings u/s 148 r.w.s 148A of the I.T. Act 1961 may not be initiated against you for income escaping assessment for A.Y. 2018-19." 5.1 This very allegation was, broadly, replicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent within the meaning of provision of section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19." 6. The record shows, something which Mr Abhishek Garg, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the petitioner, does not dispute, that the petitioner did not file a reply to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Mr Garg, however, says that after the AO had passed the order dated 26.03.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act, a reply dated 06.03.2023 was filed. 7. It appears, that thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 11.03.2023, proposing variation in the income was issued to the petitioner. Mr Agarwal points out, that there is no challenge to the show-cause notice dated 11.03.2023. 8. We may note, that Mr Garg has stated, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... woes. 11. As indicated above, the AO has gone further, to issue a show-cause notice dated 11.03.2023, for proposed variation of income. 12. Since the reply of the petitioner dated 06.03.2022 is already on record, we would urge the AO to take this into account. 13. At this stage, Mr Garg says, that besides the reply dated 06.03.2023, the petitioner also filed a reply on 17.03.2023. [See Annexure 19 appended on page 172 of the case file]. 14. We may note, that it is the petitioner's case, that insofar as the allegation with regard to the increase in share capital was concerned, this aspect was scrutinized by the AO while passing the order dated 19.10.2020, under Section 143(3) of the Act. 15. We may also note, that the allegation made i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
