TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner has also challenged the notice dated 05.04.2023 issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act. 2. Facts, necessary for adjudication, are that the petitioner, a private limited company is engaged in the business of manufacturing/trading of papad, namkeens, snacks and other associated derivatives of such products. 3. A notice dated 03.03.2023 was issued to the petitioner under Section 148(b) of the Act, whereby it was asked to show cause why a notice under Section 148 of the Act should not be issued on the basis of information available, which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gued that in the notice dated 03.03.2023 issued under Section 148A (b) as well as the order dated 31.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, the assessing officer has mentioned that the basis of information with him which suggests the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, is the survey conducted on 04.03.2020 though he has no authority to take into consideration any information gathered during survey conducted prior to 1st of April, 2021. It is, therefore, argued that the order dated 31.03.2023 issued by the assessing officer under Section 148A (d) of the Act and consequential notice under Section 148 of the Act are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 10. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is selected pursuant to the Explanation 1(i) of Section 148 of the Act. It is argued that the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year was selected under risk management strategy which is formulated by the Board on 20.02.2023. It is wrong to contend that the case of the assessee is selected on the basis of information collected during survey conducted on 04.03.2020 under Section 133A of the Act. Learned counsel has argued that in para 2 of the notice dated 03.03.2023 issued under Section 148(b) of the Act, it is clearly mentioned that case of the petitioner is selected on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f MGT-14 at MCA website. It was observed that the petitioner filed MGT-14 on 13.03.2018 with 25772 shares in MCA Portal, however, vide letter dated 04.08.2022 and uploaded on ITBA Portal on 06.08.2022, the assessee submitted MGT-14 of 257732 shares and the form was also bearing the same digital signature, date and time. Noting this fact, the petitioner was specifically asked why it submitted forged MGT-14 of 257732 shares but the response of the petitioner was not satisfactory. 13. Learned counsel has submitted that from the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that sufficient reasons or material was available with the assessing officer for reopening the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is clearly mentioned that case of the petitioner is flagged in the insight under the head High Risk CRIU/VRU for assessment year 2019-20. The case is flagged as CRIU/VRU High Risk in Insight Portal in accordance with the risk management. The order passed by the assessing officer under Section 148A(d) also speaks that case of the petitioner is flagged as CRIU/VRU High Risk case in Insight Portal in accordance with the risk management. 18. In view of the above, we found that the assessing officer has not initiated the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act against the petitioner on the basis of information collected during survey under Section 133A conducted on 04.03.2020 but for the reason that the case of the petitioner is selected u....