2021 (7) TMI 957

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....P.No.33139 of 2018 is filed to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in ITA No.191/16-17 dated 18.11.2016 in the case of M/s.B.Rangaswamy Naidu Orchards Private Limited. 2. Admittedly, in the said order dated 18.11.2016, the petitioner was not a party and he challenges a particular portion of the observations made by the second respondent, which would affect the interest of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is an assessee and filed his return of income regularly. The facts as narrated and with reference to the shares purchased by the petitioner are not disputed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner, Mr.K.Rajesh was not a Director of the Company, name....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the Director of the said Company. Such an observation made against him without even providing an opportunity to him is in violation of principles of natural justice and based on the observations, the first respondent issued notice under Section 147 of the Act, for reopening of assessment for the Assessment Year 2009 - 10. Thus, both the orders dated 18.11.2016 and the consequential notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 28.02.2018 are to be set aside. It is further contended that the impugned notice was issued beyond the period of limitation contemplated and on that ground also the orders are unsustainable. 5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents disputed the said contention by stating t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and no direct action was taken against the petitioner and admittedly in the present case no direct orders are passed and the Assessing Officer has reason to believe for reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act and consequently issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act. Thus the petitioner is entitled for an opportunity to defend his case including the factual aspects submitted even before this Court. If at all, the petitioner claims that he was not a director of the said Company M/s.B.Rangaswamy Naidu Orchards Pvt.Ltd., it is for the petitioner to establish the same before the Authorities Competent. However, those disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India and the only....