SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Chh) 305

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Barbrik Projects Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Through Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors. - Respondents
WPT No. 186 of 2022
Decided On : 28-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. S. Rajeswarara Rao and Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ramakant Mishra, ASG and Ms. Anju Sharma, Mrs. Naushina Afrin Ali and Mr. Ajay Kumarani.

The court emphasized that the Assessing Authority must follow the prescribed procedure under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consider the material on record before issuing an order or notice.

Headnote:

Income Tax Act - Quashment of order under Section 148A and notice under Section 148 - Section 148A, Section 148

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a domestic company engaged in civil construction works, filed an income tax return for assessment year 2018-2019. The Assessing Authority issued a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that the petitioner had engaged in transactions involving fake invoices for passing input tax credit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Assessing Authority had followed the prescribed procedure under Section 148A of the Act, 1961 and had considered the material on record before issuing the impugned order and notice. The court held that the petitioner's defense could be examined during the proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.

Issues: The main issue was whether the writ petition challenging the order passed under Section 148A(d) and notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Assessing Authority had followed the prescribed procedure under Section 148A of the Act, 1961 and had considered the material on record before issuing the impugned order and notice. The court found that the petitioner's defense could be examined during the proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as it was deemed premature, and the court held that the petitioner's defense could be examined during the proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.

ORDER :

1. By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of order (Annexure P/1(a) passed under Clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act, 1961”) and notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.

2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner is a domestic company and engaged in execution of civil construction works. It has filed income tax return for assessment year 2018-2019 on 26-3-2019 declaring the total income at Rs.43,14,13,840/-. It has also been stated that the company is maintaining regular books of account as per Companies Act, 2013 and also under Section 44AB of the Act, 1961 through independent auditor wherein the financial statement is also prepared. It has been contended that regular assessment for assessment year 2018-2019 was completed under Section 143 (3) of the Act, 1961 and total income was determined as per return determining demand payable at Rs. Nil. Thereafter, respondent No.4 has issued notice under Clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act 1961 on 24-3-2022 (Annexure P/5) wherein the Assessing Authority has mentioned about the credible information which is extracted below.

    “Consequent to the information under High Risk CRIU/VRU cases obtained from insight portal, this office is in possession of information that M/s Panveen Trading Private Limited has certain transaction with you. Ms. Panveen Trading Private Limited has shown sale of Rs.2,20,00,275/- to Barbik Project Limited during the financial year 2017-2018.

However, on the basis of credible information is received that M/s Valeska Trading Private Limited, M/s Panveer Trading Private Limited & M/s Shwetpuship Commercial Private Limited were found indulging generating and selling tax invoices to various entities without physical supply of underlying goods/services for passing regular input tax credit to other business entities and for doing this they have also availed and utilized input Tax Credit (ITC) against fake invoices issued by others.

As per detailed information available with this office, you are a beneficiary of transaction for an amount of Rs.2,20,00,275/- made during the financial year 2017-2018 relevant to the AY 2018-2019 in the form of accommodation entry.

In view of the above discussion, it is evident that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.2,20,00,275/- has escaped assessment for AY 2018-19 and this is a fit case for issue of notice to show cause u/s 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. You are therefore requested to show cause as to why a notice u/s 148 should not be issued on the basis of the above flagged information.”

3. The petitioner has submitted reply to the notice vide Annexure P/6 denying the allegations made in the notice contending that the notice was issued for providing opportunity of hearing being heard with respect to income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as denied that any fake invoices that was used the same and the same is utilized for input tax credit. The petitioner prayed for supply of credible information along with copy of the fake invoices and copy of approval of the specified authority. The Assessing Authority considering the submissions has passed the order under Section 148A(d) (Annexure P/1) on 31-3-2022 wherein the Assessing Authority has observed as under.

    “1. Credible information has been received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata that the assessee has certain transactions with M/s Panveer Trading Private Limited during the financial year 2017-18.

2. During investigation, it is observed that M/s. Panveer Trading Private Limited has been incorporated on 05-10-2016 ie after the introduction of GST in indirect tax system.

3. Huge business transactions made by the entry is not in commensuration with its financial profile, as submitted before the income tax authority. Summary of income tax return filed by the entry is tabled”.

4. The Assessing Authority has passed the

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top