9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year 2017-18. Brief facts:- 2. The petitioner is an individual and has filed his return of income for assessment year 2017-18 on 3 August 2017. The said return of income was selected for scrutiny by issuing a notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act for examining the claim of deduction under Section 57 of the Act. In the petition at Exhibit 'C', there is a copy of the email response submitted by the petitioner during the course of original assessment proceedings in which reference is made to evidence in support of the nexus between the income from other sources and deduction against that income. However, surprisingly, the enclosures to this Exhibit 'C' are not annexed in the present petition. 3. On 24 December 2019, an assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments, but again, none of these attachments are annexed to the present petition. It is also important to note that at pages 52 and 53 is a typed copy of the letter, which is transcribed in the email, but surprisingly, the same is undated, or the date is missed. 6. On 28 March 2024, an order under Section 148A (d) of the Act came to be passed, and along with the said order, notice under Section 148 of the Act was also issued for reopening the case for the assessment year 2017-18. In the order under Section 148A (d) of the Act, it is stated that the time allowed for submitting the reply had expired on 25 March 2024. The petitioner had neither filed any reply nor requested for adjournment; therefore, the order is passed on the premise that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner did not file reply to the show cause notice on or before 25 March 2024 and, therefore, no grievance can be raised after the expiry of time given for filing of the reply. She further submitted that none of the attachments or annexures to the emails or letters filed during the course of the assessment proceedings or to the belated reply filed to the show cause notice u/s 148A (b) of the Act have been annexed to the present petition. She submitted that whether there is any nexus or not is a factual issue which cannot be gone into by this court in this proceeding. She submitted that the various annexures have also been suppressed and such a petition may not be entertained. She submitted that this is moreso because the petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order that no reply was filed on or before 25 March 2024, nor was any request made for an extension. However, this would not preclude the petitioner from relying upon the objections before the Appellate Authority. 16. The email dated 27 March 2024 refers to 7 attachments in support of the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, but surprisingly, none of the attachments are annexed to the petition. Yet the Petitioner insists upon this Court adjudicating the matter. In the absence of any attachments, this Court cannot examine the issue raised by the petitioner in the reply, which reply was also filed after the expiry of the returnable date. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to have annexed these attachments if the petitioner desire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments to Exhibit 'C', this Court cannot exercise its discretionary and equitable jurisdiction to investigate such factual issues. The information furnished to the petitioner states that the revenue audit could not find any documentary evidence on record to show nexus. Therefore, this would require the Court to go into facts of what was filed or not, and such an exercise certainly cannot be carried out in writ proceedings. 19. The petitioner has relied upon various decisions of this Court in support of his submission that even after the amendment to Section 148 of the Act, audit opinion cannot be the basis for reopening the case. For the reasons stated above, in the absence of any attachment to the letters filed during the assessment procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not based on audit objections. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of Mira Mehta (Supra) is prima face misplaced. The said decision does not apply to the facts of the present case, and the same is distinguishable. 22. The third decision relied upon by the petitioner is in the case of Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd (Supra). The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Knight Riders (Supra) has relied upon the decision in the case of Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Writ Petition No.4888 of 2022 dated 25 August 2023 and observed that once a query has been raised, reassessment cannot be initiated because it will amount to a change of opinion. The Coordinate Bench relied upon the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
