MAHABOOB SAB MOULA SHARIFF Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has essentially called in question the third respondent's assessment order dtd. 29/12/2022 [Annexure-A] under Sec. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the Act'] while seeking directions to the fourth respondent to lift the attachment of his bank account bearing No.04260010000559 with M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank.

(2.) Sri Malhar Rao K, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned assessment order is consequent to the documents purportedly seized during the search at the petitioner's business premises. The transactions, which even according to the impugned assessment order relate to the period between 2014 to 2019, have been brought into assessment for the assessment year 2021-22, and it would be irrefutable that these transactions cannot be brought into assessment during the current assessment year 2021-22. This has resulted in additional income of Rs.12,49,86,194.00 [Rs. Rs.12,29,86,194.00 + Rs.20,00,000.00][ The assertion is also that Rs.20,00,000.00 is taken twice, one as part of advances during the period 2014-15 and another as protective addition.].

(3.) Sri Malhar Rao K further submits that according to the impugned assessment order, the notice is issued under Sec. 144 of the Act, and the petitioner is not served with this notice. However, it is undisputed that as the petitioner has appeared before the assessing officer on 13/12/2022 and 24/12/2022, the assessment order is framed under the provisions of Sec. 143(3) of the Act. He argues that if notice is issued under Sec. 144 of the Act, the assessment could not have been framed under sec. 143(3) of the IT Act, and these two grounds render the impugned order without jurisdiction.