TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... offered by it in connection with Order dated 24.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) (Annexure-2) in connection with Notice dated 18.03.2025 under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Annexure-1) on specious plea of information received in connection with income pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20 (Previous Year 2018-19). Facts culled out from writ petition: 2. The petitioner, a partnership firm carries on its business dealing in cattle feed and building material on wholesale and retail basis since 1985-86 in the name and style "M/S. SANJAY KUMAR BIJAY KUMAR", being allotted with Permanent Account Numbers- "ABAFS4271L" (for convenience be referred to as "PAN-1") and "AATFS3658P" (for convenience be referred to as "PAN-2"). It has been furnishing returns under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "IT Act") disclosing PAN-2, since Assessment Year 2003-04, but it never utilized PAN-1 in connection with its business activities. However, due to inadvertence it disclosed PAN-1 in certain banking transactions with the Canara Bank, nonetheless, it requested the Bank to take out corrections in its records mentioning PAN-2. 2.1. On collecting information ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Department submitted that the writ petition challenging the Notice dated 30.06.2025 under Section 148 (Annexure-13) read with intimation dated 25.07.2025 under Section 144B (Annexure-14) issued pursuant to Order dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure-2) passed under Section 148A(3) upon consideration of reply to Notice dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure-1) under Section 148A(1) of the IT Act is not maintainable and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. 3.3. Advancing argument further he would submit that the petitioner is not denied to avail ample opportunities before the Assessing Officer and other statutory authorities, if circumstances would so arise, in order to justify its claim of double taxation by adducing cogent evidence and demonstrating on facts that the transactions of deposit in the Canara Bank had already been considered against PAN-2 instead of PAN-1. Having not filed returns qua PAN-1, the DCIT is the competent authority to institute proceeding under Section 147 treating the transactions with the Canara Bank indicating PAN-1 as escaped assessment of income. 3.4. There is no plausible reason available for the petitioner to circumvent the procedure estab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeding under Section 147. Not entertaining the present writ petition would ensue prejudice as for the same cause of action the petitioner has to engage itself again for the purpose of assessment. 5.2. In Muljibhai Patel Vrs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot, AIR 1974 SC 2105, the Supreme Court held that the High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution merely in considering the petitioner's right to relief, question of facts at fault to be determined. The High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both on facts and law. In case complex question of fact is raised, which may for its determination require oral evidence to be taken, the High Court may decline to entertain the writ petition. However, it is the discretion of the High Court to exercise on sound and in conformity with judicial principle. 5.3. In State of Tripura Vrs. Manoranjan Chakraborty, (2001) 10 SCC 740, it is held that if gross injustice is done and it can be shown that for good reason the Court should interfere, then notwithstanding the alternative remedy which may be available by way of appeal or revision, the writ Court can in an appropriate case exercise i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra Bank 90,78,290 2. -do- -do- 3,51,69,000 Total 4,42,47,290 On verification by this office it is observed that the assessee M/s. Sanjay Kumar Bijay Kumar is filing its returns using PAN: AATFS3658P from Assessment Year 2007-08 onwards. However, the assessee has used PAN: ABAFS4271L in bank accounts maintained by it in Canara Bank during the Financial Year 2018-19. It is pertinent to mention here that for similar ground an Order under Section 147 read with Section 144 passed by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack on 29.03.2023 computing total income of the assessee as NIL. Hence, this office treats that total amounts to the tune of Rs. 4,42,47,290/- remains unexplained and thereby escaped assessment of income of Rs. 4,42,47,290 within the meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Considering above facts and circumstances into account and on the basis of material available on record as well as to protect the interest of revenue, it is considered that the assessee's case is a fit case to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act, for the impugned Assess Year 2019-20. This order is being issued after obtaining prior approval of the J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... words, at the initiation stage, what is required is reason to believe, but not the established fact of escapement of income. At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was a relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief. Whether the material would conclusively proved the escapement is not the concern at that stage. This is so because the formation of belief by the AO is within the realm of subjective satisfaction.' Under the above facts and circumstances, the aggregate amount of Rs. 4,42,58,596/- i.e. [Rs. 4,42,47,290 + Rs. 11,306] is prima facie considered to be assets available in its hand and income corresponding to said deposits has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2019-20 within the meaning of provisions of Section 147 of the IT Act. Accordingly, it is considered to be a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act." 6.3. After examining the genuineness of said cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 4,42,47,290/-, the ITO passed Assessment Order dated 30.03.2023 under Section 147 of the IT Act with respect to Assessment Year 2019-20 enclosing therewith Computation Sheet with the fol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts has been considered, while filing the return under PAN: AATFS3658P for the Assessment Year 2018-19. As such the assessee submits that, the self-same amount and self-same period should not be taxed twice, which will amount to double taxation and prohibits under the law. This also incorporates the principles o 'autrefois convict' or double jeopardy, hence proceeding initiated under Section 148 of the Act may be dropped.' *** The submission of the assessee is perused. On verification of the audited P&L, Balance Sheet, ITR and bank ledger, it is found the contention of the assessee is substantiated with corroborated documentary evidences. The current account bearing No.0353214000010 and CA No.0328201001453 of the firm maintained at Canara Bank and all transactions of deposits & withdrawals thereof were accounted for in the books of accounts for the Financial Year 2017-18 relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-19 of M/s. Sanjay Kumar Bijay Kumar, PAN-AATFS3658P which is certified by the Chartered Accountant and return of income has filed by the assessee for the said Assessment Year in PAN-AATFS2358P. Under the facts & circumstances of the case and in view of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct the jurisdiction of the Court but operates as a bar to the trial of the suit or issue, if the matter in the suit was directly and substantially in issue (and finally decided) in the previous suit between the same parties litigating under the same title in a Court, competent to try the subsequent suit in which such issue has been raised." 6.8. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vrs. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd., (2009) 5 SCR 879 it has been enunciated as follows: "45. Before we part with the case, we may address to the plea of res judicata raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the Department. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan pressed into service few legal maxims in this regard. It is true that maxim Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa is founded on principle of private justice as it states that no man ought to be twice put to trouble if it appear to the court that it is for one and the same cause. The maxim Interest republicae sit finis litium concerns the State that law suits be not protracted. This maxim is based on public policy. In our opinion, these maxims cannot be applied as a rule of thumb in the taxation matters. In the matters of classificatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed evidences of deposits made in the said bank and copies of return(s) to demonstrate that the said amount(s) was disclosed in the return filed against PAN-2. Scrutiny of Order dated 24.06.2025 passed under Section 148(3) of the IT Act, it leads to depict unequivocally that the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack sought to initiate proceeding for assessment invoking Section 147 by issue of Notice dated 30.06.2025 under Section 148 and treating the same amount of deposit being made with the Canara Bank, i.e. Rs. 4,42,47,290/- as escaped income. Whereas the assessment under Section 147 came to be concluded by the ITO by passing Assessment Order and Computation Sheet attached thereto, the DCIT should not have rejected the explanation offered by the petitioner in response to Notice under Section 148A(1) for with respect to the same period and the same transaction treating it to be escaped income two assessments under same provision cannot be held tenable in the eye of law. It can thus seemly be held that the DCIT has initiated proceeding for assessment under Section 147 by issue of Notice under Section 148 by rejecting mechanically the explanation proffered by the petitioner in connection with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... well settled. In S.B. Jain, Income Tax Officer, Nagpur Vrs. Mahendra (1972) 83 ITR 104 (SC) a notice was issued to the Assessee on 5th January 1962 under Section 34(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 1946-47. While the said proceedings were pending, the Income Tax Act, 1961 came into force with effect from 1st April 1962. The challenge by the Assessee to the validity of the notice issued under the 1922 Act succeeded with the Bombay High Court quashing the said notice by the Order dated 6th March 1963. Thereafter the Income Tax Officer issued a fresh notice on 26th March 1963 under Section 148 of the Act in respect of the very assessment which had sought to be reopened by the earlier notice under Section 34(1)(a) of the 1922 Act. The Supreme Court held that the proceedings initiated under Section 34(1)(a) of the 1922 Act were pending at the time when the 1961 Act came into force and, therefore, the Income Tax Officer was not competent to issue a fresh notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. In Nilofer Hameed Vrs. Income Tax Officer, (1999) 235 ITR 161 (Ker) after referring to a number of judgments of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22nd July, 2021, was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra). 12. This Court, is also in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the statement of Sh. Kewal Krishna Arora shared by the AO with the petitioner on 25th March, 2022." 6.16. Being abreast of such ruling on the fact-situation obtained in Sanjay Kumar Garg (supra) and Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. (supra), in the instant case, however, the Notice under Section 148 reached its destination on the Assessment Order being passed by the ITO, Ward 1(1), Cuttack under Section 147 on 30.03.2023 which had already attained finality and, hence, on the same grounds involving same transaction qua the same assessee vis-a-vis the same Canara Bank, the DCIT is not competent to initiate proceeding for assessment under said provision again by issuing Notice dated 30.06.2025 subsequently. Conclusion: 7. Before concluding it deserves to be stated that it is well established that the materia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 148(3) of the IT Act (Annexure-2). It is also not denied by the learned Senior Standing Counsel that the ITO had taken into consideration the explanation of the petitioner that it has been filing returns using PAN-2, but not PAN-1, and accepting such fact on verification of evidence and material on record, the ITO had reduced the assessment to NIL for the relevant Assessment Year. 8.1. With the aforesaid backdrop of factual conspectus, at this juncture it does need to be emphasised the following enunciation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Himanshu Dewan and Sonali Dewan, (2023) 12 SCR 1118: "31. No doubt, in Pawan Gupta Vrs. Experion Developers Private Limited 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 788, this Court had not exercised the power or jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution of India, but had exercised its appellate power, which would, in terms of the ratio in Kunhayammed and Others Vrs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359 = (2000) 1 Suppl. SCR 538, becomes the final order which is executable. Thus, the dismissal of the appeal by this Court in the case of Pawan Gupta (supra), had put a fina....