TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s.132 of the Act was issued in the name of the petitioner/ assessee and, thereafter, the case of the petitioner was centralized with CIT, Ahmedabad II Circle. Notice dated 16/07/2008 u/s.153-A of the Act calling upon the petitioner to file Return of income was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner file its Return of income for the Assessment Year 2007-08 on 27/06/2009 declaring his total income as Rs. 35,32,510/-. The case of the petitioner came to be selected for scrutiny and Notices u/s.142(1) and 143(2) were served on the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent issued impugned Notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 20/03/2014 for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2007-08. Upon receipt of the impugned Notice, the petitioner made request to the respondent vide letter dated 27/03/2014 and 29/04/2014 to supply the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. The respondent vide order dated 07/05/2014 supplied the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. It is the case of the petitioner that the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment are misconceived and baseless. Therefore, the petitioner raised various objections to the impugned show cause notice o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Secretary and others decided on 08/05/2015 as well as judgement rendered by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mukesh Modi V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur reported in [2014] 224 TAXMAN 362/45 taxmann.com 468 (Rajasthan), wherein similar view is taken. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax and others V/s. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra) relied upon by learned advocate for the appellant, has held as under: "19. Thus, while it can be said that this court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal's case, Titagard Paper Mills' case and other similar judgements that the High Court will not entertain a petition under article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the above principle regarding by passing statutory appeal to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we have to examine as to whether the petitioner has made out the case to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is an undisputed fact that search u/s.132 of the Act was carried out in the Asian Group of Industries on 07/02/2008 and, thereafter, Notice u/s.153 A was issued on 16/07/2008 calling upon the petitioner to file return of income for the assessment year 2007-08. In response to the notice, the petitioner filed Return on 29/06/2009 declaring his income at Rs. 35,32,510/-. Thereafter, the petitioner has been served with the Notice u/s.132 of the Act and also u/s.241 of the Act, calling for details from the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his reply to the Notices but the respondent was not convinced and did not accept the reply and issued the impugned notice on the ground that the sale amount to the tune of Rs. 7,98,68,610/- was not disclosed by the petitioner. It is specific case of the petitioner that books of accounts were available for perusal of the respondent authority and at the time ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....legal, invalid and without jurisdiction. 7. The contention of Mr.M.R.Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the respondent is that the Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons for giving the impugned notice to the petitioner. It is his further contention that at the time of search/raid, the petitioner had not disclosed the sale transaction of Rs. 7,98,68,610/- and, therefore, there was suppression on the part of the petitioner, which is evident from verification of books of accounts. The books of account did not reflect the said sale transaction. Therefore, the authority has rightly exercised his power u/s.147 of the Act. He has relied upon reported decision rendered in the case of I.D.Patel and Co. reported in [2012]246 tax man 207 (Gujarat) wherein it is held that it is sufficient to issue notice if the failure can be inferred and when there is a prima facie material justifying the issue of notice, this Court would not quash the notice. It is his further contention that when the petitioner has failed to disclose the sale transaction of Rs. 7,98,68,610/-, he can put up his case before assessing officer and assessing officer is satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, he c....