TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the notice issued and failed to substantiate the same with relevant entries in its books of accounts. HELD THAT:- On carefully going through the information which was furnished to the assessee in the form of an annexure to the said notice, it is seen that the assessing officer sought to initiate re-assessment proceedings only for the assessment year 2016-2017. It is no doubt true that the information which was received by the department pertaining to the three financial years have been set out but nonetheless, the re-assessment proceedings which have been proposed to be initiated pertained only to the assessment year 2016-2017. The assessee raised an objection in their reply dated 20.04.2023 stating that notice cannot be issued by clubbing three assessment years. On receipt of the reply, the assessing officer in no uncertain terms has clarified by email dated 20.04.2023 that they were required to submit the details of cash deposits made in a particular bank account in the name of the assessee during the financial year 2015-2016 relevant to the assessment year 2016-2017. The assessee would contend that the assessing officer sought to amend the notice dated 31.03.2023 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been scrupulously followed by the assessing officer and there is no error in the decision-making process of this court to interfere. Thus we find that the challenge to the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act has to necessarily fail. Assessee appeal dismissed. - HON BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Appearance:- For the Appellant : Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. Anujit Mookherjee, Adv. Mr. Prithish Chandra, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Roy, Adv. JUDGMENT (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.) 1. This intra court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 19.07.2023 in WPO No. 1294 of 2023. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for brevity). 2. As could be seen from the grounds canvassed in the writ petition as well as from the submissions made by Mr. Pranit Bag, learned advocate appearing for the appellant writ petitioner, the case of the appellant is that the respondent assessing authority had failed to consider that information for several ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s further submitted that the appellant will have adequate opportunity in the re-assessment proceedings in which it will be well open to the appellant to place all documents in support of their contention and face the re-assessment proceedings. With the above submissions, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. Pranit Bag, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. The assessing officer issued notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 31.03.2023. The notice mentions the assessment year as 2016-2017. The main ground of suspicion based on which such notice was issued pertain to high value cash deposit during the demonetization period from March 2016 to March 2017 in two bank accounts where the total credit and debit turnover was Rs. 87.69 crores and Rs. 85.86 crores out of which cash deposit of Rs. 20.51 crores and RTGS debit was Rs. 61.65 crores. The annexure to the said notice further states that summons under Section 131 of the Act was issued to the Branch Mangers of the concerned banks for furnishing the bank account statements of the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee for the said period and in which other companies they were holding same position during the said period. 7. In the light of the above information furnished, the assessee was requested to show cause as to why adverse inference should not be drawn in their case and also to explain why a notice under Section 148 of the Act should not be issued taking into consideration the facts. The assessee submitted a reply dated 20.04.2023 stating that the same is in the nature of a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the re-assessment proceedings and the jurisdiction of the assessing officer to issue the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 8. The first objection raised by the assessee was that the re-assessment proceedings has been sought to be initiated pursuant to information received against the assessee without any verification thereof and that it pertained to three financial years and information relating thereto have been clubbed in the notice which has been issued being financial years 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. It was further stated that an appeal against the assessment order dated 27.04.2021 for the financial year 2017-2018 has been preferred a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther it was stated that on perusal of the reasons for issuing the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, it is seen that it has been issued upon receipt of information from unknown sources and various allegations have been made against the assessee without conducting any independent enquiry to support the initiation of the re-assessment proceedings. The assessee reiterated its earlier objection that the notice cannot be issued clubbing the three assessment years and therefore it is without jurisdiction. Further it was stated that by the reply given by the assessing officer by email dated 20.04.2023 the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act cannot be modified and the same is not permissible under law. With the above submissions, the assessee prayed for dropping the proceedings. 10. The assessing officer proceeded to consider the objection raised by the assessee including the written submissions made on 29.04.2023 and noted the key points raised by the assessee therein. The assessing officer concluded that the assessee failed to produce any credible evidence to explain the source of cash deposits which had been pointed out in the notice issued and failed to substantiate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quests for adjournment on two occasions and granted time till 30.04.2023. It is only after receiving the said information, the assessee sought to give a reply on merits on 29.04.2023 once again reiterating what had been stated earlier. The contentions raised by the assessee have been considered by the assessing officer and a reasoned order has been passed recording all facts and dealing with all the objections raised by the assessee. 13. Mr. Bag contended that notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act could not have been issued without conducting an independent enquiry in terms of Clause (a) of Section 148 of the Act. Section 148A of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2023 deals with conducting inquiry providing opportunity before issue of notice under Section 148. It states that the assessing officer shall, before issuing any notice under Section 148A(a) conduct an inquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority with respect to the information which suggests that income chargeable to tax as escaped assessment. Thus, the conduct of enquiry has not been made mandatory but discretion and has been vested with the assessing officer as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
