TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2013. 2.1. The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 30.3.2012 as at Annexure C to the petition issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) by the respondent. 2.2. By the said notice, the respondent desired to reopen assessment for the year 200506. The respondent supplied the reasons recorded by him for issuing such a notice to the petitioner. Such reasons read as under: "In your case the, as per fact and material available on the record it came to notice that you are paying commission out of sale made to different parties. You are paying commission @ 12% on the overall sale made during the year. You have made turnover i.e. sale of Rs.19,42,94,234/- in the F.Y. 200405 relevant to A.Y. 20050....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rce as required under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is the only reason for which the notice for reassessment has been issued. 4. Counsel submitted that the AO has proceeded on totally incorrect premise. The petitioner had not paid any commission during the previous year relevant to the assessment year. Requirement of deducting tax at source therefore, did not arise at all. He therefore, submitted that the reasons recorded for issuing notice for reassessment lack validity. Notice may therefore, be quashed. 5. The learned counsel Mr. Manav Mehta for the respondent opposed the petition. On the crucial factual averment made by the petitioner, he, however, was not able to dispute. We had at the very outset while issuing notice in our order date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction raised by the petitioner before the AO also. Despite such stand of the petitioner from the outset, the respondent has totally failed in dislodging this clear and unequivocal factual assertion. We had not only while issuing the notice, thereafter also required the respondent to meet with this important factual aspect. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta for the respondent was previously also granted additional time for this purpose. Unfortunately, his instructing officer has left no worthwhile information to him to be able to dispute this aspect. We had, in fact, desired to gather full instructions in writing. Counsel having made efforts conveyed to us that he had failed to do so. 7. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation in believing a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a notice without valid reasons. In other words, validity of reason permitting the Assessing Officer to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment would be a relevant consideration even in cases, where the court is examining challenge to a notice for reopening where no scrutiny assessment was previously framed. Division Bench of this Court in case of Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M. Gopalan, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax or his successor in a judgement dated 06.08.2012 in Special Civil Application No. 858 of 2006 examined the assessee's following contentions: "10. This brings us to the second limb of the petitioner's challenge namely, that the power under section 147 of the ....