TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 803
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., owing to the factual matrix, with the consent of both sides main writ petition was taken up and heard out. 3. Short facts or in other words facts that are imperative for appreciating this order are that the impugned assessment order pertains to 'Assessment year 2013-2014' ('said AY'); that the writ petitioner is a Partnership Firm engaged in Textile business; that regarding said AY, jurisdictional Assessing Officer took up the case for scrutiny by issue of notices under Section 143 (2) and 142(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act' for brevity); that an assessment order came to be made on 16.02.2016; that thereafter a notice dated 19.03.2020 came to be issued under Section 148 of IT Act; that in response, the writ petitioner filed a return on 30.10.2020; that thereafter notices were issued under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 of IT Act on 09.04.2021 and 13.04.2020; that the writ petitioner uploaded objections on 21.04.2021; that the objections of the writ petitioner were rejected on 25.05.2021; that thereafter notices under Section 142(1) were issued on 10.08.2021 as well as 25.08.2021; that this was followed by show cause notice (SCN) dated 13.09.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of Income Tax and others] relied on by the learned Revenue Counsel is distinguishable on facts that was a case where the Court came to the conclusion that the conduct of the assessee is willful. 7. This Court now embarks upon the exercise of analyzing the rival submissions setting out its discussion and dispositive reasoning on the same. 8. The first point on new material, in the considered view of this Court is tad too late in the case on hand. The reason is Doosan Bobcat India Private Ltd., case (cited supra) relied on and Orchid Pharma Ltd., case viz., Orchid Pharma Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in [2021] 439 ITR 387 (Mad). In the case on hand, the impugned assessment order has been made, the writ petitioner has sent objections. Writ petitioner has been served with not one but two notices under Section 142(1) of IT Act (dated 10.08.2021 and 25.08.2021) followed by SCN dated 13.09.2021. Doosan Bobcat being a case where Court came to the conclusion that assessee's conduct was willful does not make the case law distinguishable on facts as the proposition is whether one can revisit reas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ectory together with dates have already been captured supra elsewhere in this order where there is a narrative capturing factual matrix and the trajectory the matter has taken. 12. In taking the above view, this court reminds itself of a judgment of a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the celebrated Padma Sundara Rao case, wherein the manner of referring to a case law (precedent) and as to how the fact setting even owing to minor differences can make a world of difference in a case as a precedent has been dealt with. Padma Sundara Rao case law citation is (2002) 3 SCC 533 and the excerpted portion of Padma Sundara Rao which would be of utmost relevance is paragraph 9 and the same reads as follows: '9.Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington v. British Railways ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would have been inclined to send the matter back to the Assessing authority to proceed from the SCN stage but in this case, as the argument that it is a scrutiny assessment and that even the details of the immovable property said to have been purchased by assessee / writ petitioner have not been given has some force and therefore, going into the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is a matter where it can be sent back to the Department to proceed from the first of 142(1) notices viz., 142(1) notice dated 10.08.2021 which is as follows: 16. The above notice vide the Annexure more particularly Serial No.8 calls upon the writ petitioner to furnish details of immovable property purchased by the writ petitioner firm or by any partners of the firm qua said AY with source. Nothing prevents the writ petitioner-assessee to responding to this. Equally it is open to the Department to issue the additional notice giving particulars of the immovable property. This course will balance the rights of the writ petitioner and interest of the Revenue. 17. Before proceeding i.e., before writing the operative portion of this order, it is deemed appro....