2014 (9) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioners have also challenged the order dated 12 June 2012 rejecting the petitioners' objection to the reasons in support of the impugned notices dated 7 December 2012. 2. The reasons recorded in support of both the impugned notices for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 are identical and read as under:           "The assessee company is engaged in trading of various industrial products viz. Crucibles, graphites, spare parts of industry equipments safety equipments, safety masks etc. The suppliers of trading goods of the company both foreign as well as domestics. The clients of the company include Indian Ordinance authorities, DRDO BARC apart from other private corporate. &nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2005-06 has escaped assessment.     Issue notice u/s. 148." 3. On 12 June 2012, the Assessing Officer rejected the objections of the petitioners by separate orders for Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2007-08. In particular the objections to lack of jurisdiction on the basis that there is a change of opinion was considered in the following manner.     (extracted portion of the order)     "Accordingly, in the course of statements recorded u/s.131 of the IT Act, 1961, some of the parties denied of having any transaction with the assessee and admitted of issuing bogus purchase bills by passing the accommodation entires in their books of account. None of the suspected companies were fond doin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs from the end of the relevant assessment year, unlike the notice in earlier Writ Petition No.2860/2012 which was issued beyond the period of 4 years. Therefore, failure to disclose fully and truly all facts necessary for assessment was the subject matter of consideration in the earlier petition which would not arise in this case.     b) During the proceedings for assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act in both A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 complete details were sought for and supplied in respect of the parties from whom goods were purchased unlike in proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Act in A.Y. 2005-06. Therefore, in Writ Petition No.2860/2012 this Court had come to a conclusion that there was no occasion in Section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s the respondent revenue received information that purchases claimed by the petitioners were alleged to be bogus. These bills issued in favour of the petitioner now informed to be bogus was not a subject matter of consideration during the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thus there was no change of opinion. In view of the above, it is submitted that the petitions be dismissed. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We are considering the facts in these two petitions independently of the decision rendered by us in W. P. 2860/2012 on 18 June 2014 challenging the reassessment notice for A.Y. 2005-06 However, it must be pointed out that in W. P .No.2860/2012 the assessment sought to be reopened was for a period o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the purchase details furnished by the petitioners including the bills of purchase are genuine. The information obtained subsequent to the assessment indicates that certain purchase details may not be genuine. Therefore, the occasion to consider the genuineness of the purchase bill was never a subject matter of scrutiny in the proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08. We are of the view that subsequent information received by the revenue would call for investigation. So far as submission of lack of particulars in the grounds furnished to the petitioner is concerned, we find that the chart annexed to the reasons did indicate the names of the sellers, year of purchase and quantum of purchase alleged to be bogus....