TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 830
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the interest of the Revenue. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner deals in the business of gold bars and gold ornaments. On 27.02.2019, a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 23.08.2019, a show cause notice under section 272-A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act was issued. Thereafter, the petitioner, through its representative, appeared and submitted relevant documents before the authority and the respondent no. 2, after considering all the details, completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on a total return income of Rs. 53,91,630/-. On 27.03.2022, a notice under section 263 of the Act was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 1 on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner's Advocate appeared on 30.03.2022. 6. He further submits that in 2nd proviso to section 263 of the Income Tax Act, certain conditions have been enumerated for passing an order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, but none of such conditions has been fulfilled before passing the impugned order. In the impugned order, no finding has been recorded as to how the original order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 7. He further submits that the notice under section 263 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 27.03.2022, which was uploaded on the website on 28.03.2022. The notice of the same was received by the petitioner in the morning, i.e., the date fixed for submitting reply. Therefore, the petitioner moved an adjo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the date fixed, the reply was not submitted, but on the subsequent date the reply was submitted and after considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the manual order sheet maintained by the Department (Anneuxre No. CA - 8), where the signature of the counsel of the petitioner figures. He further submits that since the assessment order dated 22.12.2019 was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and the impugned order has rightly been passed. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. 11. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andwritten order has been shown that the counsel for the petitioner appeared and his signature has been obtained thereon. No explanation has been submitted in the impugned order or in the counter affidavit as to why and under what circumstances as well as under which law, two different order sheets are being maintained. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically denied the signature on the manual order sheet and has relied on the signature on the adjournment application (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition), on perusal of which creates a doubt on two count; firstly, the signature are different and secondly, there was no occasion for adopting two different modes of maintaining order sheet; one computer generated order sheet and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rusal of paragraph no. 5 of the impugned order shows that the assessee has submitted its reply after due examination of the same and material on record, the impugned order has been passed. 16. From the perusal of the aforesaid paragraph nos. 4 & 5 of the impugned order, it clearly reveals that the same are self-contradictory. The respondent - authority is trying to blow hot & cold at the same time. Whereas, in paragraph no. 4 of the impugned order, it has been mentioned that no reply has been submitted by the petitioner, to the contrary, in paragraph no. 5 of the impugned order, it has been mentioned that the assessee has submitted its reply. Neither in the impugned order, nor in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, any reference....