TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n had not been carried out by reaching out to IDFC Ltd. - HELD THAT:- In our view, before passing the impugned order AO could have called upon the petitioner to submit not only the SPA, but also perhaps a letter of confirmation from IDFC. These were the simple steps that could have been taken before passing an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act. We have put this aspect to Mr Rai. Mr Rai says that an inquiry can be made with regard to the issues which have been highlighted by the AO in the impugned order. Therefore, in our opinion, the best way forward would be to set aside the impugned order, with liberty to the AO to pass a fresh order after he has called upon the petitioner to submit the requisite documents in support of its defence wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounter-affidavit, and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the court. 3.1 Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself. 4. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 5. Via this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the following notices and orders: (i) Notice dated 27.03.2023 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, Act ]. (ii) Order dated 01.05.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. (iii) Consequential notice dated 01.05.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 6. The principal allegation leveled against the petitioner was that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its account maintained with Citi Bank, Singapore. 10.1 In other words, the stand taken was, the petitioner was, both, the remitter and the beneficiary of Rs. 4,51,06,614/-. 11. The AO, however, was not persuaded by the explanation given by the petitioner. The AO proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 01.05.2023. The rationale provided by the AO in holding that income amounting to Rs. 9,10,36,673/-, which was otherwise chargeable to tax, had escaped assessment was that the petitioner had failed to provide the SPA executed between itself and F1 Info. 11.1 Furthermore, the AO held that, although, the petitioner had given some explanation with regard to the repatriation of Rs. 4,51,06,614/-, independent verification had not been ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
