TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") 2. The impugned proceeding is challenged primarily on the following grounds: a) That the impugned proceedings is nothing but mere change of opinion and thus bad for want of jurisdiction. b) That the impugned proceeding is made beyond the period of four years thus it is necessary for the assessing officer to find that there was failure on the part of the petitioner assessee to disclose fully and truly all material particulars. The above aspect is a condition precedent for invoking the power under Section 147 read with 148 of the Act beyond 4 years. Failure to render a finding on the same would vitiate the entire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....veli the assesee is involved huge amount of cash transaction in Bank of India Virudhunagar, in account number 826620110000018 to the tune of Rs. 7,81,93,92,066/- during the Assessment year 2015-16. On verification of the return details for the Assessment year 2015-16 the Firm has admitted an amount of Rs.36,81,67,179/- as Gross receipts. But the firm's deposited amount (Rs.7,81,93,92,066/-) is higher than gross receipts" v) The petitioner submitted its reply / objection vide letter dated 02.07.2021, stating that the petitioner did not have any bank account in Bank of India, Virudhunagar Branch nor any Bank Account Number bearing 826620110000018. A confirmation letter from the Bank of India, Virudhunagar Branch was also submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0004111580 during the period from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2015." 5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the writ petition ought not to be entertained against the order rejecting the objection by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anshul Jain v. CIT reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1756. 6. On hearing both sides, I am of the view that the impugned proceedings suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. Reliance placed on Anshul Jain's case by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent is misconceived. The above judgment was a case were it was found as a matter of fact that the objections were considered. However, in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." b) Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., 1978 1 SCC 405: "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. ...... Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." 8. Applying the above decisions to the present case, this Court is inclined to set asid....