Pahilajrai Lund Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that the petitioners are entitled to a notice before an adverse conclusion arrived in the Impugned Assessment Order. Accordingly, assessment order set aside and matter remitted back.
Facts- The petitioners are before this Court against the Impugned Assessment Order dated 27.09.2021 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is mainly contested that invocation of jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act was beyond the period of limitation under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act as there was no suppression of facts by the petitioners. It is also contested that for the first time in the Impugned Assessment Order, the first respondent has come to an adverse conclusion that based on the reply received from the Syndicate Bank in response to the notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, wherein the Syndicate Bank had purportedly stated that there was no mention of the deposit in Capital Gain Accounts while there were debits in the Bank Statement
Conclusion- Held that the petitioners are entitled to a notice before an adverse conclusion was arrived in Paragraph 3 of the Impugned Assessment Order that the Certificate did not mention Capital Gains Account. This ought to have been informed to the petitioners before an adverse order was passed against the petitioners. Under these circumstances, this Court is inclined to set aside the Impugned Assessment Order and remits the case back to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
