TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Reassessment proceedings under section 148A(d) upheld despite taxpayer's denial of transactions with Fortune Graphics Limited</h1> <h3>KORDIENT VENTURES PVT. LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 13 (1), NEW DELHI AND ANR</h3> KORDIENT VENTURES PVT. LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 13 (1), NEW DELHI AND ANR - TMI Issues:1. Challenge to initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Consideration of objections raised by the Assessing Officer.3. Substantial jurisdictional challenge and factual allegations.4. Examination of whether income of the petitioner had escaped assessment.5. Principles governing a challenge to the initiation of reassessment proceedings.6. Legal principles enunciated by the courts regarding initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on a Show Cause Notice dated 04 March 2023. The reassessment proceedings were initiated due to alleged misuse of firms for generating false invoices to avail Input Tax Credit.2. The Assessing Officer considered the objections raised by the assessee, where the petitioner denied transactions with certain entities but failed to provide supporting documents. The officer found discrepancies in the balance sheet and lack of sales, indicating possible bogus transactions, leading to an income chargeable to tax of Rs. 48,80,48,040.3. During the writ petition, the petitioner reiterated no transactions with certain entities and willingness to reverse entries. However, the court found these submissions lacking a substantial jurisdictional challenge and mainly addressing factual allegations without providing a plausible explanation for the transactions in question.4. The court observed that the Assessing Officer considered relevant facts to determine if the petitioner's income had escaped assessment, emphasizing the importance of material gathered to support such a belief.5. Legal principles from previous judgments were cited, emphasizing the need for recorded reasons to be based on tangible material and have a rational connection to the belief of income escapement. The court highlighted the distinction between 'reason to believe' and 'reason to suspect,' stressing the mandatory recording of reasons before issuing notices under Section 148.6. The court referred to established principles regarding initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, including the necessity of a rational connection between reasons and belief of income escapement, the relevance and cogency of material, and the obligation to record reasons before issuing notices. The judgment dismissed the writ petition based on these principles.
TaxTMI 