9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act for AY 2019-20, and the impugned notice dated 31st March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2019-20. 2. One Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd. ("IGSPL") amalgamated with Petitioner with effect from 7th July 2011 pursuant to an order dated 5th March 2013 passed by this Court. Petitioner was earlier called M/s. Serco BPO Pvt. Ltd. 3. Petitioner filed return of income on 29th November 2019 for AY 2019-20 disclosing total income of Rs. 193,91,30,100/- under normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 2,47,10,34,147/- as book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. It is averred in the petition that all the transactions during the relevant year were done by Petitioner being the transferee company but certain third parties hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansactions, information, a notice under Section 148 of the Act, should not be issued." 5. Petitioner replied vide its letter dated 29th March 2023. Notwithstanding Petitioner's explanation, an order dated 31st March 2023 is passed by Respondent No. 1 rejecting Petitioner's objections and holding that it was a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. A consequent notice under Section 148 of the Act has also been issued. The order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequent notice under Section 148 of the Act has the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Devindra Kumar Gupta under Section 151 of the Act. 6. Various grounds has been raised in the petition, but the most important ground is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad the request for approval along with draft of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, they would have certainly noticed the discrepancies. It is, therefore, clear that none of these officers have even bothered to read the request for approval or draft of the order. In the affidavit in reply, it is mentioned as a typographical error. We are not inclined to accept this explanation because a typographical error could have been committed by the AO, who was seeking the approval, but if only the Additional/Joint CIT or the PCIT had read the approval application and the draft of the order to be issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, they would have certainly noticed the discrepancy and they should have either refused approval or sent the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
