IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
Balesh Jain Sons HUF - Appellant
Versus
Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 11944 of 2022
Decided On : 06-09-2022
Income Tax Act - Show Cause Notice - Reassessment - Beneficiary of Accommodation Entries
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the show cause notice and order issued under the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2014-15, alleging transactions with Mr. Naresh Manakchand Jain.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the documents showing the petitioner as a beneficiary of accommodation entries should have been enclosed with the notice issued by the revenue. The court set aside the order and directed the revenue to issue a supplementary notice enclosing all relevant material and documents.
Issues: Challenge to show cause notice and order under the Income Tax Act, alleged transactions with Mr. Naresh Manakchand Jain, and failure to enclose relevant documents with the notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the equities by setting aside the order and directing the revenue to provide all relevant material and documents to the petitioner, allowing for a fresh order to be passed in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition and applications with the directions to the revenue, clarifying that it had not commented on the merits of the controversy and leaving the rights and contentions of all parties open.
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, (Oral) J. - Present writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 17th May, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] as well as order dated 29th June, 2022 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-15.
2. On 18th August, 2022, this Court had issued notice in the present writ petition. The relevant portion of the order dated 18th August, 2022 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
'Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Petitioner filed its return of income for the relevant Assessment Year declaring an income of Rs.10,80,404/- and an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued. He states that the Petitioner received the impugned show cause notice dated 17th May, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act seeking to reassess the income of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner had undertaken transactions worth Rs.87,60,348/- with Mr.Naresh Manakchand Jain in the form of accommodation entries and the same had escaped assessment. He states that in his reply dated 27th May, 2022, the Petitioner informed the authorities that he had had no dealing with Mr.Naresh Manakchand Jain and also submitted details regarding the income earned by him during the year under consideration as well as his bank statement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order dated 29th June, 2022 was issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act rejecting the contentions of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner had not submitted any supporting evidence to show that the alleged information was incorrect and therefore the transaction of Rs.87,60,348/- undertaken by the Petitioner remained unexplained.
It is not understood by this Court as to how the petitioner can prove the negative! It is pertinent to mention that no instance of any transaction between the petitioner and Mr.Naresh Manakchand Jain has been placed on record by the Assessing officer.'
3. Today, Mr.Abhishek Maratha, learned counsel for the respondents revenue, states that as per information received from Central Circle -2(1), Mumbai through Insight Portal, (a copy of which has been shown to this Court), the assessee has been found to be a beneficiary of accommodation entries from Mr.Naresh Manekchand Jain and his several associates who had been instrumental in manipulating prices of several penny stock scrips on the stock exchange.
4. He further states that the name of the assessee appears in the list of beneficiaries (at Sr.No.7779) who had done transaction in such scrips during the financial year under consideration i.e. financial year 2013-14. He has also shown the list of beneficiaries to this Court.
5. This Court is of the view that the documents shown by Mr.Maratha today should have been enclosed with the notice issued under Section 148A(b) by the respondents-revenue to the petitioner.
6. To balance the equities, this Court sets aside the order dated 29th June,2022 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act for the assessment year 2014- 15 and directs the respondents-revenue to issue a supplementary notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act within four weeks enclosing all the relevant material, information and documents, including the two documents shown to this Court today after redacting third party information. The petitioner is given liberty to file an additional reply/response within four weeks thereafter. Along with its reply/response, the petitioner shall enclose copies of its Demat Account and its Bank Account Statement. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) of the Act in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition along with applications stands disposed of.
The court emphasized the importance of providing all relevant material and documents to the petitioner in a fair and balanced manner, ensuring that the rights and contentions of all parties are left ....
Procedural fairness in tax reassessment mandates that taxpayers are provided all relevant documents and information before being called to respond to allegations, ensuring a fair opportunity for defe....
Second notice under Section 148A(b) is invalid when an initial notice under Section 148 has already been served; Supreme Court directions pertain to a different timeframe and do not apply.
A show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act must contain specific allegations of income escapement; its absence renders the assessment invalid.
The court held that the Assessing Officer's failure to consider the petitioner's detailed replies before passing the reassessment order violated procedural justice under the Income Tax Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the amended re-assessment scheme introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, and the importance of upholding principles of natura....
The importance of the petitioner's response to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act and the granting of a personal hearing.
The Court affirmed that vague show cause notices issued under Section 148A(b) lack compliance with natural justice, necessitating clear material for Assessee responses.
Orders based on vague allegations without specific details violate the right to a fair hearing under tax law.
Assessing Officers must provide specific details in notices for effective response by Assessee, adhering to principles of natural justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.