9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 13th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") for the Assessment Year 2018-19. [2] The brief facts of the case are as under: [2.1] The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner filed return of income showing total income of Rs. 61,24,830/- for the Assessment Year 2018-19. [2.2] The respondent - Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act calling upon the assessee as to why reassessment proceedings should not be initiated by issuing show cause notice under Section 148 of the Act on the following grounds: * As per information received by the respondent. M/s S.K. Enterprises, Ahmedabad (i.e. a third party) was involved in avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has made any bogus purchases. * The petitioner further requested the respondent to provide an opportunity of cross-examination of the persons concerned before relying upon their statement against the petitioner * The petitioner also requested for copy of approval of the competent authority for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings in the case of the petitioner. * Genuineness of purchases in question stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt. * Complete details of purchases made from M/s BK Enterprises (viz. name, address, PAN, GSTIN etc) were furnished to prove the purchases in question. * Following documentary evidences of purchase, delivery and payment were also furnished: ▪ Ledger of SK Enterprises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tity details have been maintained; ▪ Stock audits have been periodically carried out by banks. * Merely because M/s. S. K. Enterprise did not file the income-tax return or did not comply with the notices issued by the department cannot conclusively prove that purchases made from the said party are bogus. * Unaccounted purchases cannot be considered as income, but only net profit element embedded therein can be taxed as income. * Various judicial pronouncements were also referred to by the petitioner in support of various contentions raised in the submissions." [2.4] The petitioner, by another letter dated 7th April 2022 addressed to the respondent, clarified that value of the GST credit on total purchases from M/s. S. K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elivery of goods received by the petitioner are taken into consideration and simply relied upon the information received by the risk management strategy formulated by the CBDT. [4] It was submitted that the petitioner has raised objection with regard to issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act giving all the details with regard to the transactions with M/s. S. K. Enterprises, however, the respondent - Assessing Officer, without considering such details, has decided on the basis of the information received by him only that it is a fit case to reopen the assessment. [5] It was, therefore, submitted that starting point of the inquiry i.e. information has resulted into the decision on the basis of information only ignoring the details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent - Assessing Officer has passed the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act without considering the reply filed by the assessee. Section 148A(d) of the Act reads as under: "148A. The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148, - (d) decide, on the basis of material available on record including reply of the assessee, whether or not it is a fit case to issue a notice under section 148, by passing an order, with the prior approval of specified authority, within one month from the end of the month in which the reply referred to in clause (c) is received by him, or where no such reply is furnished, within one month from the end of the month in which time or extended time allowed to furnish a reply as per clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical to conclude that the assessee has no proper proof and corroborative information with respect to the guilelessness of the purchases made by them as stated above." [10] Considering the above, it appears that the Assessing Officer has reproduced the reply filed by the assessee and the contents thereof are not even referred or analyzed prima facie to come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to reopen the assessment. [11] On the other hand, the petitioner along with the reply has reproduced the following documentary evidence of purchase, delivery and payment to show the genuineness of the transactions entered into with M/s. S. K. Enterprises: "(b) Documentary evidence of purchase, delivery and payment to prove the genuineness there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
