2017 (3) TMI 1678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dloi Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Bhopal on 25.01.2017, this writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner should take recourse to the remedy available under the Income Tax Act by filing an appeal. We have heard objections in this regard in detail and we find that initially when action was taken for reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, petitioner approached this Court and challenged the action by contending that the "reasons to believe" for reopening of assessment are not proper, is arbitrary and the manner in which the assessment is being reopened, interference should be made. The matter was dealt with in detail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No. 4046/2015 decided on 21.04.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eizure operation where amount have been shown to be transferred in the name of certain persons indicated in the records as M,P,C and M wherein the 'M' refers to Minister, 'P' refers to Principal Secretary, 'C' refers to Commissioner Municipal Corporation Indore and 'M' refers to Mayor of Municipal Corporation Indore and therefore, it was said that there is nothing on record or material to show that the Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development, Bhopal was also involved in the matter. Accordingly, it was stated that the "reasons to believe" recorded for reopening of the assessment is not only perverse but is without any material evidence and therefore the petition should be admitted and interferenc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n considered. Even though, Shri Lal placing heavy reliance on the judgement in the case of Neeraj Mandloi Vs. ACIT, Bhopal and the judgements of the Supreme Court referred to therein, argued that the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner should challenge the reassessment order, we find that in the case of Neeraj Mandloi, questions that had risen for consideration as indicated herein above in fact the facts and circumstances of the present case is entirely different, and while considering the case of Neeraj Mandloi itself, we had taken note of pendency of this writ petition and we were of the opinion at that time also that merely because this writ petition is pending and stay has been granted, similar treatment cannot be granted....