TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Act; impugned notice dated 29 March, 2023 under Section 148 of the Act issued/passed by respondent no. 1, initiating the reassessment proceedings for AY 2019-20; b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari/mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing the impugned Draft Assessment Order dated 13 March, 2024 under Section 144C (1) of the Act; Impugned Assessment Order dated 18.04.2024 under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act along with Impugned Demand Notice dated 18.04.2024 under Section 156 of the Act, Impugned Penalty Notice no. 1 dated 18.04.2024 under Section 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act and Impugned Penalty Notice No. 2 dated 19.04.2024 under Section 274 r.w.s. 272A (1) (d) of the Act issued/passed by Respondent no. 1 for AY 2019-20. c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari/mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordering and directing the respondents to withdraw the impugned noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. In the context of the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under section 148, Mr. Mistry has drawn our attention to the facts of the case, which according to him are quite gross. It is Mr. Mistry's contention that the petitioner is a limited partnership incorporated under the laws of United States of America which had invested an amount equivalent to INR 34,99,78,225/- in Compulsory Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS) issued by an Indian Company, namely, Girnar Software Private Ltd. in the Financial Year 2018-19. 5. It is contended that respondent no. 1 had initiated reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2019-20, under which notices under section 148A (a) and (b) of the Act were issued to the petitioner seeking information in regard to the source of investment. It is the petitioner's case that these notices, in fact, were not served on the petitioner. It is also the petitioner's case that the order under section 148A(d) although was passed, the same was not served on the petitioner. It is also the petitioner's contention that thereafter a draft assessment order under section 144C (1) of the Act was passed to add Rs.34,99,78,225/- to the income of the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore 11 June, 2024 and rejoinder, if any, was required to be filed by 21 June, 2024. Today we are almost 2 months ahead of the time granted to the respondents to file reply affidavit, having been expired. We also find that there is no application filed on behalf of the respondents seeking extension of time to file reply affidavit, much less, a reply affidavit being prayed to be filed. Thus, Mr. Mistry would be correct in his contention that the respondents have not complied with the order dated 9 May, 2024. He would also submit that considering the gross facts of the case, possibly the respondents are not inclined to file reply affidavit. 9. On such issue, we may observe that the order dated 9 May, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court is certainly not complied by the respondents. It also appears that there is no intention to file reply, as there is no application filed seeking to file a reply or praying for extension of time to file reply affidavit. If at all the same was to be filed in the fact situation, it would be the discretion of the Court whether to grant any extension to file a reply after considering the reasons which could have been set out by the respondents....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the Central Charges and International Taxation charges) which fall under the following class of cases shall be completed under section 144B of the Act. a. where the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was/is issued by the (erstwhile) NeAC or by the NaFAC; b. where the assessee has furnished her/his return of income under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under section 142 (1) or section 148(1); and a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, has been issued by the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income-tax Authority, as the case may be; c. where the assessee has not furnished her/his return of income in response to a notice issued under section 142 (1) of the Act by the Assessing officer; d. where the assessee has not furnished her/his return of income under section 148(1) of the Act and a notice under section 142 (1) of the Act has been issued by the Assessing Officer. 2. This order shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of April, 2021. Sd/- (Gulzar Ahmad Wani) JCIT(OSD)(ITA-1)" 11. From a bare reading of the aforesaid order, we are not inclined to accept the case of respondents that the provisions of Section 144B read wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice is required to be issued under Section 148 of the Act in a faceless manner. In such a situation, not only clause 3(b) but also the first two lines below clause 3(b) would be otiose, as it deals with the aspect of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Respondents, being an authority subordinate to the CBDT, cannot argue that the Scheme framed by the CBDT, and which has been laid before both House of Parliament is partly otiose and inapplicable. The argument advanced by respondent expressly makes clause 3(b) otiose and impliedly makes the whole Scheme otiose. If clause 3(b) of the Scheme is not applicable, then only clause 3(a) of the Scheme remains. What is covered in clause 3(a) of the Scheme is already provided in Section 144B(1) of the Act, which Section provides for faceless assessment, and covers assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, if Revenue's arguments are to be accepted, there is no purpose of framing a Scheme only for clause 3(a) which is in any event already covered under faceless assessment regime in Section 144B of the Act. The argument of respondent, therefore, renders the whole Scheme redundant. An argument....