9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner, submits that this notice is erroneous since certain transactions have been referred to twice in the "information" based on which the impugned proceedings are initiated. He submits that the statement about the mismatch between the information and the returns filed by the Petitioner is also erroneous. He submitted that the Petitioner offered a detailed explanation in respect of each transaction. Still, the impugned notice has been issued without considering such an explanation. He submits that the assumption of jurisdiction is wrongful because it violates the principles of natural justice. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Benaifer Vispi Patel vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merits of the challenge to the impugned notice, we find that the only argument raised is that the statements in such notice are erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that the detailed reply was filed to the notice pointing out the errors, but the impugned notice is still being proceeded with. The Respondents have filed an affidavit denying that the statements in the impugned notice are erroneous or that there is any duplication as alleged. 9. The adjudication of whether the statements or allegations in the impugned notice are erroneous in the sense that they contain factual errors or not would involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact. This would involve an elaborate process best undertaken by the AO. This Court does not normally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner in the said petition. On affidavit, the Revenue has stated that the Petitioner had correctly disclosed her interest income in the return of income. Further, in paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-reply filed in the said petition, it was admitted that the actual interest accrued by the Petitioner was e-verified from the system. It was found that as on the day, the amount of interest reflected in the system was only Rs. 8,72,800/- and not Rs. 26,41,235/- as was reflected in the system previously. 13. Thus, in the case of Benaifer Vispi Patel (supra), there was an admission about the errors in the impugned notice. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Respondent-Revenue on record of the said petition, such errors were acknowledge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
