IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.
Palmtree Infracon Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3) Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2019 of 2023 & CM APPL. 7666 of 2023
Decided On : 17-02-2023
Income Tax Act - Reassessment Proceedings - Mere Suspicion - Set Aside
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged the order and notices issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner's name was mentioned in a survey carried out against related entities, and it was alleged that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to credit entries in the petitioner's bank account.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reassessment proceedings were triggered on a mere suspicion and were not in sync with the information in the survey report. The court set aside the order and notices, allowing the Assessing Officer to carry out a fresh exercise with the requirement to furnish all information and material in his possession to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the reassessment proceedings based on suspicion and the discrepancy between the survey report and the allegations against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the basis of the impugned order was a mere suspicion, leading to the decision to set it aside and allow the Assessing Officer to conduct a de novo exercise with the requirement to provide all relevant information and material to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order and notices, collapsing the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, and allowed the Assessing Officer to carry out a fresh exercise with the obligation to furnish all relevant information and material to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
W.P.(C) 2019/2023 & CM APPL. 7666/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
1. Issue notice.
1.1. Mr Sunil Agarwal accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/revenue.
2. Mr Agarwal says, that in view of the directions that we propose to pass, no counter-affidavit is required to be filed.
2.1. Therefore, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short `the Act'] and the consequential notice dated 26.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. Besides this, challenge has also been laid to the notice dated 21.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.
3.1. To be noted, the impugned notices and order concern Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
4. The record seems to indicate, that a survey was carried out under Section 133A of the Act against Rockman Advertising and Marketing Limited and other related entities.
4.1. The extract of the survey shows, that the petitioner's name finds mention at serial No.18. [See page 54 of the case file].
4.2. The record also seems to suggest, that a survey under Section 133A of the Act was also carried out vis-a-vis business premises of two individuals i.e., Mr Chander Shekhar Aggarwal and his accomplice Mr Sarang Mohiley.
5. The survey, apparently, brought forth the following facts qua the petitioner i.e., that during the period spanning between 01.04.2016 and 08.11.2016, it had made a cash deposit amounting to Rs.9,90,000/-. However, insofar as the period spanning between 09.11.2016 and 31.12.2016 is concerned, no deposits were made by the petitioner. Concededly, the demonetization period spanned between 08.11.2016 and 31.12.2016.
6. A perusal of the notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under the old regime shows, that survey action was carried out inter alia, against, one, Mr Chander Shekhar Aggarwal. The notice dated 21.05.2022 issued under the new regime adverted to the earlier notice dated 30.06.2021. In sum the allegation made against the petitioner is, that there was a suspicion that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, in view of the fact that there were credit entries in the subject bank account amounting to Rs.83,58,82,035/-, during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 [AY 2017-18].
6.1. This suspicion was prefaced with the fact, that the petitioner had, during the very same period i.e., during the relevant AY i.e., AY 2017-18, declared taxable income amounting to Rs.36,100/-.
7. Counsel for the petitioner says, that firstly, what is stated in the survey report is not in sync with what is alleged against the petitioner. Secondly, the reassessment proceedings have been triggered on a mere suspicion.
8. Mr Sunil Agarwal, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, says that given the income declared by the petitioner in its ITR, and the credits found in the bank account during the same period, further inquiry was required, which is why reassessment proceedings had been triggered.
9. Given the basis, on which the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 is founded, i.e., a mere suspicion, we are inclined to set it aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officer to carry out a de novo exercise.
9.1. It is ordered accordingly.
10. Consequently, the notice dated 26.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act will collapse.
11. The Assessing Officer, if he so chooses, will be at liberty to take the next steps in law. However, before the AO carries out a fresh exercise, he will furnish the entire information and/or material which he has in his possession, besides the bank statement to which reference has been made in the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act.
11.1. In case any fresh information and/or material is
Reassessment proceedings cannot be solely based on mere suspicion and must be supported by concrete evidence or material.
The importance of factual accuracy in the Assessing Officer's assumptions and the requirement to grant a fair opportunity for a personal hearing influenced the court's decision.
The Assessing Officer must consider the petitioner's response and furnish the information/material before passing an order under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
The court emphasized the requirement to grant a minimum of seven days to respond to a notice under the Income Tax Act and the obligation to furnish material available with the Assessing Officer to th....
The court established that failure to supply information required for assessment invalidates the reassessment notice, supporting due process in tax proceedings.
The Assessing Officer must provide adequate reasoning for reassessment actions and ensure compliance with natural justice principles.
A personal hearing is essential in tax assessment procedures to ensure administrative fairness; failure to provide one invalidates the assessment orders.
Reassessment proceedings must be initiated with the approval of the specified authority as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The importance of timely assertion and the requirement for verification and personal hearing before passing an assessment order under the Income Tax Act.
Notices issued under the Income Tax Act must provide clear and specific information to the assessee, and vagueness or lack of clarity may lead to their quashing.
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.