TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1035
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itution of India. Though an alternate remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, resort is made to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, on the contention that the entire exercise that resulted in the impugned order was one without jurisdiction. 2. Petitioner is an assessee under the Act and carries on its business of quarrying and sale of rock aggregates. For the assessment year 2014-15, the revised return filed by the petitioner was accepted and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016. Subsequently, in exercise of the powers under section 263 of the Act, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam, called for and examined the proceedings that resulted in the assessment order and f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imposing penalty. Learned Counsel relied upon the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Super Metal Re-Rollers (P) Ltd. [(2004) 265 ITR 82 (Del.)], Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K.D's Costa [(1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del.) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Keshrimal Parasmal [(1986 157 ITR 484 (Raj.)], Commissioner of Income Tax v. C.R.K. Swamy [(2002) 254 ITR 158 (Mad.)] Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parmanand M.Patel [(2005) 278 ITR 3 (Guj.)] Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. Rakesh Nain Trivedi [(2016) 282 CTR 205 (Punjab & Haryana)]. 4. Sri. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the order assailed in this writ petition can be the subject matter of an appeal and hence the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II. 4. Further, it is also observed from the records that during the course of survey some incriminating material/document were found & the same were seized. These books/documents were never confronted by the Assessing Officer to assessee at the time of assessment proceedings though it was survey assessment. Whatever books of account were produced by the assessee were accepted on their face value without any observations regarding impounded books of account/document in this case by the Assessing Officer. 8. Finally, in the concluding two paragraphs, the following are observed: "The main issue of non-examination of impounded bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g power upon the assessing officer to pass fresh orders of assessment on all the issues. 10. Consequent to Ext.P2, the assessing officer issued Ext.P3 order of assessment, wherein he has expressed his satisfaction that this is a fit case where penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of income, ought to be initiated. As a consequence of the said satisfaction expressed in Ext.P3 assessment order, the notice of penalty was issued as Ext.P4. Thereafter Ext.P6 order was issued imposing a penalty upon the petitioner. 11. Since I have already held that Ext.P2 order was an open remand, I find that the assessing officer, while issuing Ext.P3 order of assessment, was vested with all the powers including the jurisdiction to e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty proceedings. Ext.P3 assessment order issued after remand, is a proceeding under this Act and satisfies the ingredients of section 271(1)(c) and hence, the assessing officer was vested with the jurisdiction to record his satisfaction and thereafter initiate penalty proceedings. 14. The decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Super Metal Re-Rollers (P) Ltd. [(2004) 265 ITR 82 (Del.)], Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K.D's Costa [(1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del.) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Keshrimal Parasmal [(1986 157 ITR 484 (Raj.)], Commissioner of Income Tax v. C.R.K. Swamy [(2002) 254 ITR 158 (Mad.)] Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parmanand M.Patel [(2005) 278 ITR 3 (Guj.)] Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v....