Case Law Details
Abhinav Mittal Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court)
ITAT held that A transaction of purchase and a transaction of sale are two different transactions in two opposite directions. If the allegation is that bogus purchases were made and the reply given thereof is that no such purchases were made, but in fact it was a sale by the assessee, it was for the Income Tax officials to apply their own mind on the reply given by the petitioner.
Conveniently, the Assistant Commissioner converts the allegation made in the show cause notice from a bogus purchase to that of a sale after the reply of the petitioner and also instead of arriving at any satisfaction, the Assistant Commissioner merely expressed that it is rather strange that the assessee had acted in the manner indicated therein.
In view of the above, we interfere with the order dated 31.03.2022 and remand the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for an appropriate order to be passed as required under the law by arriving at a satisfaction regarding acceptability/non-acceptability of the reply given by the petitioner vis-à-vis the allegation in the show cause notice under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
