Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, GIRISH KATHPALIA
Pmc Fincorp Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-30, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
1. This writ petition seeks to challenge the notice dated 30.03.2018 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"] and the order dated 24.09.2018 disposing of the objections filed on behalf of the petitioner/assessee.
2. When the writ petition was listed before the court for the first time, a coordinate bench, while issuing notice, broadly etched out the issue which arises for consideration in this case. The coordinate bench alluded to the fact whether the material which was considered in the earlier reassessment round i.e., in 2015, was also the subject matter of reassessment in the fresh proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO).
3. It is in these circumstances that the court restrained the respondent/revenue from passing final orders in the "fresh impugned reassessment proceedings" during the pendency of the writ action.
4. To adjudicate upon the instant writ action, the following broad facts are required to be noticed.
4.1. The petitioner, formerly known as Priti Mercantile Company Ltd., filed its Return of Income (ROI) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 on 30
The principle that once a query is raised and answered, the Assessing Officer forms an opinion, making the reassessment proceedings invalid.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for actionable material and the significance of discrepancies in assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Assessing Officer must independently verify information before reopening assessments; reliance on third-party information without application of mind invalidates the reopening process.
Point of Law : Sufficiency of the evidence or material is not open to scrutiny by the Court but the existence of the belief is the sine qua non for a valid exercise of power.
At the time of recording the reason for satisfaction of AO, there should be prima facie some material on the basis of which, the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of th....
Point of law: It is no doubt true that the Court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the Income Tax Officer on the point as to whethe....
The court established that the Income Tax Officer must have a rational basis for forming a belief that income has escaped assessment, and that mere conjecture or vague conclusions do not satisfy the ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
