JSRS UDYOG LIMITED Vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the impugned notice dated 28.03.2008 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ?the said Act?) as well as the order passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.11.2008 disposing of the objections to the initiation of re-assessment proceedings preferred by the petitioner / assessee.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The facts are that the original assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the said Act on 05.03.2003. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had raised certain queries, inter alia, with regard to the share application money received by the assessee from Solo-Mio Marketing Pvt Ltd. In response to the queries raised by the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted a reply dated 10.02.2003. A copy of the said reply has been placed as Annexure-4 at page 75 of the present paper book. On going through the said reply, we note that the petitioner had clearly disclosed the names and addresses of the directors of the assessee / petitioner company. The petitioner had also stated categorically that no loans had been accepted by it during the year under consideration and that there was an increase of Rs 64,75,000/- in the share capital of the company. It was also stated that all the share application money had come from companies which were duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and that each one of them was legal entity. It was also stated that the applicants had confirmed their investments through duly attested affidavits. Specifically, with regard to the investment made by Solo-Mio Marketing Pvt. Ltd, the petitioner gave the following response:-

(3.) THE Assessing Officer issued the notice under Section 148 of the said Act on 28.03.2008 beyond the period of four years. As such, the proviso to Section 147 would become applicable. Under the proviso itself, it is necessary that before any action is initiated, it must be pointed out that the assessee had failed to make a true and full disclosure of all the material facts. In the reasons recorded in writing for re-opening the case under Section 148 of the said Act, there is no allegation that the petitioner did not make a full and true disclosure of all the material facts. In fact, in our view, the reasons recorded are quite general and vague as would be apparent from a plain reading of the same. The reasons recorded are as under:-