TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1636
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erprises, Ryp. 47,34,800/- 8,52,266/- 55,87,066 2. M/s. Pratyush Steels, Ryp 5,56,320/- 1,00,138/- 6,56,458/- 3. M/s. Rajendra Ispat Ryp. 14,20,819/- 2,55,748/- 16,76,567/- Total 67,11,939/- 12,08,152/- 79,20,091/- 3) The notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 148A (a) of the Income Tax Act after getting information uploaded under High-Risk CRIU/VRU data that the petitioner has made bogus purchases of Rs.1,83,35,526/- Rs.16,76,567/- and Rs.6,56,458/- from M/s. Abhishek Enterprises, M/s. Rajendra Ispat and M/s. Pratyush Steels respectively and it is also found that the petitioner is indulged in issuing fake bills to certain parties. 4) The petitioner submitted copies of bills and ledger accounts of the supplier for Financial Year 2018-19. Learned ACIT issued notices under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act on 02.03.2023 and in response, the petitioner filed a reply on 16.03.2023. The petitioner requested for cross-examination of the persons whose statements have been relied on by the department. Learned ACIT after taking into consideration the documents along with the reply filed by the petitioner pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her connected matters, the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the matter of PR. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat-1 Vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia passed in Tax Appeal No.691 of 2017, the order passed by the Bombay High Court in the matter of PR. Commissioner of Income Tax-20 Vs. Dhananjay Mishra passed in Income Tax Appeal No.971 of 2017 and the judgment passed by the High Court of Telangana in the matter of Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, reported in 2022 Latest Caselaw 2468 Tel. 6) On the other hand, leaned counsel for the respondents would submit that an opportunity of being heard as per provisions of Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act was provided to the petitioner on 02.03.2023 wherein the assessee was given show cause as to why the bogus purchase of Rs.1,83,35,526/- Rs.16,76,567/- and Rs.6,56,458/- during Financial Year 2018-19 from M/s. Abhishek Enterprises, M/s. Rajendra Ispat and M/s. Pratyush Steels respectively should not be treated as income chargeable to tax which has escaped the assessment within the meaning of provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2019-20. It is fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer would not be in possession books of accounts or other documents or evidence which would reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more for that year. Then notice can be issued beyond the period of three years but not beyond the period of 10 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act can be issued when there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to the tax has escaped assessment in the case of an assessee for the relevant assessment year. The specified authority for approving inquiries, providing the opportunity to pass an order under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year or Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General if more than three years have elapsed from the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11) In the matter of Arise India Limited and other connected matters (supra), the Constitutional Validity of Section 9(2)(g) of the Delhi Value Added Tax, 2004 was challenged on the ground that the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Section 9(2)(g) of the Delhi Value Added Tax, 2004, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 53, 54 and 55 observed thus:- "53. In light of the above legal position, the Court hereby holds that the expression dealer or class of dealers occurring in Section 9 (2) (g) of the DVAT Act should be interpreted as not including a purchasing dealer who has bona fide entered into purchase transactions with validly registered selling dealers who have issued tax invoices in accordance with Section 50 of the Act where there is no mismatch of the transactions in Annexures 2A and 2B. Unless the expression dealer or class of dealers in Section 9 (2) (g) is read down in the above manner, the entire provision would have to be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 54. The result of such reading down would be that the Department is precluded from invoking Section 9 (2) (g) of the DVAT to deny ITC to a purchasing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by the assessee from M/s. Raj Impex were duly supported by bills and all the payments were made by account payee cheques. But in the present case, the department has found that there were purchase bills however actually no goods were purchased to evade the tax, therefore, the facts of the case cited by the petitioner are different from the facts of the present case. 13) In the matter of Dhananjay Mishra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the third-party statement relied upon by the Assessing Officer was not supplied to the petitioner and none of those points were discussed in the assessment order. It was also observed that the assessee was not permitted to cross-examine the two persons whose affidavits; the Assessing Officer had relied upon to conclude that respondent had made certain purchases from those persons identified as Hawala Traders and consequently, the petition preferred by the Revenue was dismissed whereas, in the present case, the persons who have been examined, have admitted and further there are sufficient documents to demonstrate that in the business the bogus bills were issued, therefore, this judgment is also distinguishable from the facts of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0219 of 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh while dealing with a similar issue held that where the proceedings have not even been concluded by the statutory authority, the writ Court should not interfere at such a premature stage. It is further held that it is not a case where from a bare reading of notice it can be axiomatically held that the authority has clutched upon the jurisdiction not vested in it. The correctness of order under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act is being challenged on the factual premise contending that jurisdiction though vested has been wrongly exercised. There is a vexed distinction between jurisdictional error and error of law/fact within the jurisdiction and for rectification or errors statutory remedy has been provided. The order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.10762 of 2022 order dated 17.06.2022 and SLP No.14823/2022 order dated 02.09.2022 respectively. 19) The Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the matter of Barbrik Projects Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, passed in Writ Appeal No.473 of 2022, dated 15.12.2022 while dealing with ....