The IT department, in a tax evasion report tabled before the high court, had said that it had reasons to believe that over Rs 35 crore, earned by the firm in 2010-11, "had escaped from assessment".
A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar, taking note of the tax evasion report, said, "After going through the reasons, we are satisfied that the 'reasons to believe' show and establish a live link and connect with the inference drawn that income had escaped assessment, which is required for issuance of notice."
The firm, in its plea challenging the IT department's notice, had contended that the 'reasons to believe' were mere reasons to suspect and do not establish that income had escaped assessment.
Disagreeing with the firm's contention, the bench said that "absolute certainty is not required at the time of issue of notice and at the same time, 'reasons to believe' must not be based on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The said test and criteria, we have no hesitation in holding, is satisfied in the present case".
The bench also rejected the firm's plea that the notice was sent by the IT department to the wrong entity -- Sky Light Hospitality Pvt Ltd -- instead of Sky Light Hospitality LLP, saying "there was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else".
"However, the reading of the said letter indicates they had understood and were aware, that the notice was for them. It was replied and dealt with by them. The fact that notice was addressed to Sky Light Hospitality Pvt Ltd, a company which had been dissolved, was an error and technical lapse on the part of the respondent (IT Department). No prejudice was caused," the court said in its order.
"In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. We also deem it proper and appropriate to record that the petitioner had raised contention on merits, which we have no doubt would be examined in depth and detail by the assessing officer.
"We would expect that the assessing officer would deal with all issues independently and fairly, without being influenced by this order and challenge made by the petitioner to the notice," the court said and directed the firm to appear before the assessing officer on February 19 when the date of hearing will be fixed.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
