The impugned notices had a basis for triggering an enquiry and were not invalid. The petitioner had the opportunity to take recourse to a statutory remedy as per law if still aggrieved by the assessment order.

ORDER

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher.J. (Oral)

REVIEW PET. 115/2023 and CM No.20922/2023[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 24 days in filing the review petition]

1. At the outset, we must emphasize that we are constrained to write an order on a review petition which is longer than the judgment of which review is sought, only to allay the misapprehension of the petitioner/assessee that the notices referred to hereafter, qua which declaration was sought, still survive after the assessment/reassessment order has been passed, accepting the original return of the petitioner/assessee.

2. Besides this, in our view, it is well-established that the court can mould the relief sought by a litigant; which by itself cannot become a ground for review.

Prefatory Facts and Submissions of Counsel:

3. The instant review petition has been preferred by the petitioner/assessee against judgment dated 31.01.2023 passed in WP(C) 13040/2019.

4. Ms Rachna Agrawal, who appears on behalf of the review petitioner/assessee, says that the writ petition was instituted to seek, inter alia, the relief that the following notices were "invalid" in law:

(i). notice dated 31.03.2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"], and

(ii). notice dated 27.11.2019 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act.

4.1 It is submitted that these reliefs have not been considered while disposing of the writ petition. The contention is that it was incumbent on the court to first establish as to whether or not the said prayers were made out.

4.2 Reference was made by Ms Agrawal to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents/revenue, in support of her plea that the notice dated 31.03.2019 issued under Section 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction.

5. The argument advanced by Ms Agrawal, in support of her submission that the judgment dated 31.01.2023 should be reviewed, was pivoted on the fact that there was an admission of the respondents/revenue on record. The admission being that the respondent/revenue had wrongly concluded that the review petitioner/assessee had not filed his income tax return for the Assessment Year (AY) in issue, i.e., AY 2012-13.

6. In sum, the argument was that merely because, via assessment order dated 26.12.2019, the Assessing Officer (AO) had proceeded to accept the return filed by the petitioner/assessee, the grievance of the petitioner/assessee was not fully addressed.

7. We may note at the outset that while closing the writ petition via judgment dated 31.01.2023, we had indicated that since the assessment order dated 26.12.2019 did not foist any tax liability on the petitioner/assessee, as the income declared by him, which was pegged at Rs.1,96,430/-, was accepted, the writ petition need not progress any further

8. We had, however, given leeway to the petitioner/assessee that in case he was still aggrieved insofar as the assessment order dated 26.12.2019 was concerned, he could take recourse to an appropriate remedy, albeit, as per law.

9. A perusal of the record shows that, to begin with, the trigger for issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act was the information that had been pushed into the ITD system: Firstly, that the petitioner/assessee was a "non-filer". Secondly, that he had deposited cash amounting to Rs.14,00,000 with HDFC Bank Ltd. and Karnataka Bank Ltd. in Financial Year (FY) 2011-12 (AY 2012-13).

10. Upon receipt of the petitioner/assessee's response dated 30.04.2019, the AO was made aware of the fact that a return had been filed, which had been processed under Section 143(1) of the Act via order dated 18.09.2013.

10.1 Since scrutiny-assessment had not taken place qua the AY in issue, the assessment proceedings were carried forward, as at that point in time, the AO had, as it appears, reasons to believe that the cash deposit amounting to Rs.14,00,000 had been made by the petitioner/assessee from undisclosed