TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'The Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961)' [hereinafter 'IT Act' for the sake of brevity]' and a consequential 'notice dated 31.03.2022 bearing reference No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2021-22/1042359414(1) under Section 148 of IT Act' [hereinafter 'impugned order' and 'impugned notice' respectively for the sake of convenience and clarity] have been called in question. 2. Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for writ petitioner assails the impugned order and impugned notice inter alia on the following grounds: (a) Assessment pertains to 'assessment year 2018- 2019' ['said AY' for the sake of convenience and clarity], assessment proceedings were underway when the impugned order came to be made and the same culminated in assessment order dated 05.09.2022 and the same has been carried in appeal by way of a statutory appeal under IT Act; (b) Impugned order has been made on 31.03.2022 at 19:56 hours whereas writ petitioner / assessee's reply was uploaded prior to this time and the same has been acknowledged by the Department at 21:19:24. The impugned order proceeds on the basis that the writ petitioner assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hours but the respondent has made the impugned order about over an hour earlier i.e., at 19:56 hours on the same day. This means that the respondent has made the impugned order before the time given to the assessee for replying to the 148A(b) notice dated 25.03.2022 elapsed. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with on this sole ground. This means that the respondent shall now proceed from the 148A(b) notice dated 25.03.2022. In other words, the respondent shall now consider the writ petitioner's reply dated 31.03.2022 and redo the exercise/drill which has culminated in the impugned order. This also means that the impugned notice should also go as it is a consequence of impugned order. 9. Learned counsel for writ petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent should be directed to provide to the writ petitioner-assessee information and material relied upon by the Revenue. In support of this submission, learned counsel for writ petitioner pressed into service judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC). In response to this argument, learned Revenue counsel makes two submissions.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als with a manner in which a decision or precedent should be applied. The most relevant paragraph 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 Board [(1972) 2 WLR 537 : 1972 AC 877 (HL) [Sub nom British Railways Board v. Herrington, (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)]] . Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.' Therefore, reliance placed in Ashish Agarwal 's case by learned counsel for writ petitioner is clearly misplaced and this Court is unable to agree with the learned counsel for writ petitioner. It is axiomatic that this Court agrees with learned Revenue counsel that Ashish Agarwal's case is distinguishable from the facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITR 198 (Del)." 7. Consequently, as the show cause notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act as well as the subsequent notice dated 18th May, 2022 are bereft of any details, this Court is of the view that the Revenue by asking the Petitioner-Assessee to respond to the aforesaid vague show cause notice was virtually asking the Petitioner to search for 'a needle in a haystack'. 13. This Court has no hesitation in agreeing with the submission of learned Revenue counsel that Mahashian Di Hatti case is clearly distinguishable on facts as that was a case where matter proceeded without providing material to assessee. In this regard, the declaration of law [not just ratio] made by constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in celebrated Padma Sundara Rao case (alluded to supra) would apply in equal force. To be noted, paragraph 9 of Padma Sundara Rao case has been extracted and reproduced elsewhere in this order. 14. There is yet another perspective to the above matter. As this Court is now inclined to send the matter back to the respondent to commence the drill de novo from 148A(b) of IT Act notice dated 25.03.2022, it adequately nay comprehensively answer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loan, LTCG, bogus bill etc. to various beneficiaries. In this regard, a cash trail has been prepared identifying the ultimate beneficiaries and it is seen the assessee The India Cements Limited was one such beneficiary and thus, the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. As per the material available on record I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. This order is passed with the prior approval of PCIT-1, Chennai. कोष मूलो दणà¥à¤¡.. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT G AJAY ROBIN SINGH CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1) CHE Page 3 of 3 (In case the document is digitally signed please refer Digital Signature at the bottom of the page) This document is digitally signed Signer: AJAY ROBIN SH GUNASEKARAN Date: 31 March 256 Location: CHENNA dia 61 Document 2 AAACT1723P_Order pass us 140A_1042352253(1),31032022.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Reader (64-bit) File Edit View Sign Window Help Home Tools AAACT1728P Orde... x 3/3 Signature Properties Signed and all signatures are valid. 0% 29°C Mostly cloudy X 142% Signatur....