AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 990
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Pune, who is respondent no. 1, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. Rule was issued on 17th December 2012 and the Court observed that whether the unsigned notice is valid, is a question which needs consideration. 3. Various grounds have been raised but the primary ground on which the notice is challenged and is alleged to be not valid is that the notice is unsigned. According to petitioner, absence of a signature on the impugned notice is a substantial defect and afflicts the impugned notice with manifest illegality and this defect is incurable. 4. Petitioner no. 2 is a Director of petitioner no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner"). Petitioner no. 1 had, for Assessment Y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Department. A reminder was sent by a letter dated 3rd September 2012 from petitioners' advocates delivered only on 3rd October 2012 once again calling upon respondent no. 1 to provide the reasons for re-opening the assessment. Respondent no. 1 responded by a letter dated 4th October 2012 stating that the reasons have not been provided in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v/s. Income Tax Officer and Ors. 2003 (259) ITR 19 (SC) where the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down as under : However, we clarify that when a notice u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the notice is to file a return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the impugned notice was infact signed. Even their office copy is signed. Perhaps it was a human error. There is of course an affidavit in rejoinder also filed. We do not wish to go into the factual aspects of this in our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is true that without the reasons to believe escapement of income, petitioner would not be able to file its objections to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. It is also true that this stand of illegality of the notice has been taken for the first time in the petition. In the two communications sent by petitioners' Chartered Accountant this stand has not been taken. We would hasten to add we are not giving any decision on waiver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, petitioner had filed objections and the Revenue had passed an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and together with that issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act and it was that notice under Section 148 of the Act which was not signed. Therefore, in that case petitioner had already responded to the initial notice received from the Revenue whereas in this case, petitioner has not even filed the return of income in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. Petitioner should have filed the return of income, collected reasons for re-opening and filed objections raising all contentions including that of unsigned notice which has not been done. In our view, petitioner should have ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In short, the assessee company has debited in its books of account certain purchases whereas in actual no such material was received and used in the production. During the course of search, the details of such purchases which were not routed through the stores department and which were distinguished by GIN code "99" by the system installed within the company were identified. A copy of such purchase details is enclosed herewith as Annexure B. On going through these details, it is evident that assessee has booked bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 25,63,55,263/- during the AY 2005-06. Therefore. I have reasons to believe that income to the extent of Rs. 25,63,55,263/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of Sec 147 of ....