AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income chargeable to tax, which is in the form of an asset, is likely to amount to Rs.50,00,000/- or more, which escaped the assessment, leading to issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. The facts, in issue, are as under: i. The Petitioner herein is involved in business of Fish farming. Basing on the information received under the category of 'NMS Module of insight portal' and as no declaration was filed for the assessment year 2015-2016, the Petitioner's case was taken up by the first Respondent under Section 148A(a) of the Act. ii. A Notice came to be issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, on 20.03.2022 i.e., before the end of the period of six [06] years from the end....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....econd Respondent cannot mechanically grant approval. In-fact, it is stated that, instructions were given by CBDT, directing their Officers to consider the Assessee's reply objectively before adjudicating the same. The learned Counsel would contend that, none of these procedural aspects were dealt with by the Authority while dealing with the same. (iv) Even on merits, the learned Counsel would contend that, the information received by the Department under two heads i.e., AIR and CIB show that the Petitioner has deposited Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.26,00,000/- respectively, into the same bank account, which is Andhra Bank, is far from truth and without any basis. According to him, the amount under AIR takes within its fold the amount cove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Petitioner would be getting more number of opportunities to explain his stand, it may not be proper to curtail further proceedings, at this stage. Since, the assessment is not yet made, no prejudice is caused if the Petitioner is put to filing of assessment for the assessment year 2015-2016, in which proceedings he can explain his stand. 5. The counter filed by the Department also states that the Court has to see whether any prima facie material is available, on the basis of which, the Department could reopen the case and that the sufficiency and the correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered, at this stage. Since, the procedure as contemplated under Sections 147 and 148 are not violated and that the notice under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u Branch, which shows that the Petitioner is having only one savings bank account in Andhra Bank, Kaikaluru Branch, and the amount of cash deposits for the year is about Rs.26,00,000/-. In the explanation, the Petitioner denied depositing cash of Rs.10,00,000/- or more in a savings bank account. It was further stated that, the Petitioner never had another bank account in Andhra Bank, Kaikaluru Branch or any other bank except State Bank of Hyderabad at Kaikaluru Branch. 10. Section 148A(b) and (d) of the Act, specifically contemplate that the expression "shall verify" should carry some meaning, namely, that the information collected through source such as CIB and AIR should be verified by the authority before issuing of notice under Claus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive fact cannot be proved. On the other hand, if there is material to show that the Petitioner had another bank account, it would be useful for the Respondent to verify the same and place material in support of it. Apart from that, the AIR does not mention the bank account number or the branch of the Andhra Bank in the show cause notice. In such an event, it would be difficult for the Petitioner to explain the deposit of Rs.26,00,000/-. 13. As stated earlier, it is practically impossible to explain a fact, which according to the Petitioner is not in existence. Had any information was given to the Petitioner about the existence of another bank account either in Kaikaluru Branch or any other branch of Andhra Bank [Union Bank] with the acco....