2025 (7) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refore, prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:- Issue a writ of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Impugned Order u/s 148A(d) dated 11.11.2024 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and other Consequential proceedings; 2) Issue a writ of PROHIBITION or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to prohibit the Assessing Officer and any other income Tax Authority regarding the Impugned Order u/s 148A(d) dated 11.11.2024, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to do any consequential reassessment proceedings and any other Consequential proceedings; and 3) For such further and other reliefs, including costs of this Petition, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....grounds. First, that the AO had not considered the petitioner's response to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act; and second, that the AO had no jurisdiction to initiate the re-assessment proceedings after the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes directing faceless re-assessments. 8. In so far as the petitioner's first ground is concerned that is the AO had not considered the petitioner's response to the show cause notice this court found the same to be merited. The AO had not dealt with the specific response of the petitioner that his income, which was mentioned in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, was declared in his return of income. Accordingly, this court set aside....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner in his books are bogus as the same were made from non-existent/accommodation entry providers. Although the petitioner reiterated that the purchases were genuine, the AO found that the same required verification and the petitioner had not produced sufficient material to establish the movements of goods. 13. The AO also noted that one entity M/s Ridhi Sidhi Polymers was involved in the practice of availing/issuing bogus sales/purchase bills and the said entity had made purchases from non-filers and/or filers declaring negligible incomes. Out of these bogus purchases, sales were made to the beneficiaries including the assessee i.e. the petitioner in the present case. 14. We are not persuaded to accept that the order dated 11.11.202....