TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The case of the petitioner is that he had filed return of income on 15.10.2010 for the assessment year 2010-11 showing income of Rs.5,94,850/-. On 27.02.2017 the petitioner received a notice under Section 133 (6) of the Act dated 20.02.2017 and for which the petitioner also received reminder on 02.03.2017 as petitioner could not respond to the same being busy in organizing his stall in exhibition. However, the response in part was sent on 06.03.2017 and further on 21.03.2017 stating that there is no question of disallowance of interest on the amount paid to Sh.Gaurav. The petitioner received notice dated 28.03.2017 under Section 148 of the Act. 3. The petitioner vide letter 17.04.2021 informed the Assessing Officer about filing of retu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vit has stated that the Assessing Officer received a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) folder in the case of the petitioner from the Investigation Wing, Delhi of the Income Tax Department. Upon perusal and examination of the same and enquiries there under, it was revealed that the petitioner had paid a significant sum of Rs.1.5 crores on behalf of his son Sh.Gaurav Babbar, as consideration towards the purchase of the property located at B-8/3, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi on 03.11.2009. The above fact was admitted by the petitioner vide his submissions dated 31.07.2013 before the ADIT (Inv), Unit II (3), New Delhi. It has further been stated that the bank statement pertaining to bank account No.001702000003998 maintained with the Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eena Babbar and that the same was the direct source of the transferred sums. 10. In the counter affidavit it has further been stated that besides the business income which is nominal, the petitioner has sizeable rental income of Rs.90 lakhs received from its various properties which is being declared under a separate head of House property income. Much of the claimed sums from wife Smt.Veena Babbar and his own claimed capital of Rs.2,94,73,499/- are supposed to have been utilized to finance the huge rent yielding properties. Besides the above credits of self and those from wife, there are Secured Loans from the Banks and other financial Institutions of the order of Rs.7 crores as per Schedule B to the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2010. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment should have been re-opened. It has further been stated that all the questions raised by the petitioner are basically the questions of fact which are to be decided by the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of assessment. The department has relied upon Raymonds Woolen Mills Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors. (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603. 14. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit and reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. The petitioner has stated that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was sent without any application of mind. The sanction was granted on wrong facts. The objections filed by the petitioner were not at all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessing officer vide communication dated 09.08.2017 provided the petitioner with the copy of the reasons as recorded by the Assessing officer for reopening of the case. The reasons being recorded by the Assessing officer were quite detailed and self-explanatory. It was mentioned in the reasons that the entire amount given to his son by the petitioner, the interest has not been charged whereas the cash credit bank account from which amount was transferred to his son, the assessee had paid interest @ 14.33 per annum. The interest has been claimed by the assesse as revenue expenses which reduced taxable income of assessee for the year under consideration. 19. As on 01.04.2009, the assessee had shown loan outstanding to his son at Rs.3,....