9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 has appeared in person. 2. The short facts are these: Belgundi Cements Pvt. Limited is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The company filed a return for the A.Y 2010-11 on 08.10.2010 declaring a total income of Rs. 95,93,523/- (Rupees Ninety-Five Lakh Ninety-Three Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty-Three only). The return was processed under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act') on 08.03.2011 accepting the returned income. The petitioner filed a rectification request on 05.08.2011 which was processed on 17.08.2011. The petitioner filed another rectification request on 09.04.2014 which was processed on 21.04.2014. As the matter stood thus, the petitioner received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds as set out in the memorandum of a writ petition. 3. Sri. A. Shankar., learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that successive notices issued under Section 148 of the Act are defective and bad in law. There is no proper approval under Section 151 of the Act. The notices issued under section 148 of the Act are without authority/jurisdiction. Next, he submits that the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment are without application of mind and cannot be said to be the reasons to believe which is a mandatory condition to invoke the provisions of Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act. A further submission is made that there is no income escaping and hence the entire proceedings are bad in law. Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently stated and do not require reiteration. The issue falls on a narrow compass and revolves around the issuance of three successive notices and how the objections are considered by the officer concerned. 6. Suffice it to note that the Company filed returns on 08.10.2010 and they were processed by accepting the returned income. Strangely, the Income Tax Officers issued the notices after a lapse of almost seven years based upon the intimation that was received from ADIT (Inv.), Unit-5(4), Mumbai dated 17.03.2017 stating that the Company had undergone a onetime settlement (OTS) with the Central Bank of India and it had not filed the returns. Without prejudice to other contentions, the company replied to the notices and filed objections. &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which is impermissible in law. Hence, the reasons for reopening of assessment are untenable. Furthermore, the issuance of successive notices under Section 148 of the Act is also unsustainable in law. Therefore, the Communication dated 27.11.2017 and the notices are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, they are quashed. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Notice dated 30.03.2017 issued by the Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 (3), Belagavi - first respondent vide Annexure-A1, Notice dated 31.03.2017 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Belagavi - second respondent vide Annexure-A2, Notice dated 31.03.2017 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (2), Belagavi vide Annexure-A3 and the Communication dated 27.11.2017 issued by the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
