2008 (2) TMI 210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 21.3.2003 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), were issued to the appellant/writ petitioner/ assessee, stating the reason for re-opening the assessment with respect to assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, as contemplated under Section 147 of the Act. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are as follows: 3. The first respondent/Settlement Commission has passed an order dated 28.10.2002 with respect to one M/s.Mohan Aluminium (P) Ltd., Bangalore (hereinafter will be referred to as "MAL"), for the assessment year 1995-96. Before the Settlement Commissioner, one V. Jagadisan, Chartered Accountant, who appeared on behalf of MAL admitted that the duty free imported materials were sold in the open market and undisclosed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant/writ petitioner/assessee, a sum of Rs.2,43,57,295/ and Rs.83,18,591/- had escaped assessment for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively and accordingly, the assessment was reopened. 5. Aggrieved by the above said notices dated 21.3.2003, the appellant/assessee had chosen to challenge the order of the Settlement Commission dated 28.10.2002 by filing the above writ petition. The learned single Judge, in his order dated 1.9.2003, rightly observed that the appellant/writ petitioner/assessee cannot be allowed to challenge the proceedings of the Settlement Commission dated 28.10.2002 made in the case of MAL, to which the appellant/ writ petitioner/assessee is not a party at all. Moreover, the assessing authority has only place....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessment, if they so desire. Since the appellant/writ petitioner/assessee is not aggrieved by the said reason for reopening, much less, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, there is no need to quash the observations made by the Settlement Commissioner in his proceedings dated 28.10.2002, to which the appellant/writ petitioner/assessee is not even a party. 8. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made on both sides. 9. It is trite law that the subsequent information, based on which the reassessment was proposed, should be definite, specific, relevant and reliable and then only such material would constitute to satisfy the test of reason to believe, because such reason to believe should not be construed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble.  11. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the proceedings of the Settlement Commission dated 28.10.2002 is binding only on M/s.Mohan Aluminium (P) Ltd. (MAL) and not on the appellant. While disposing the case of MAL, the Settlement Commissioner, based on the statement obtained from one V. Jagadisan, Chartered Accountant who appeared on behalf of MAL and other materials placed before him, was constrained to make certain observations with reference to the transactions between MAL and the appellant/writ petitioner/assessee. Those materials, in our considered opinion, can definitely be a reason for reopening the assessment in respect of the appellant/writ petitioner/assessee.  Bu....