The court emphasized the importance of the Assessing Officer's application of mind and adherence to the record in issuing notices and orders under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J.

1. By way of this writ petition brought under Articles 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought following reliefs pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19:

"a) Quash the Impugned Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Respondent U/s. 148A( d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961;

b) Quash the Impugned Final Notice dated 08.04.2022 issued by the Respondent U/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961;

c) Quash the Impugned Corrigendum dated 01.04.2022 issued by the Respondent under the Act;

d) Quash the Impugned Show Cause Notice dated 25.03.2022 issued by the Respondent U/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961;

e) Pass any other and further order(s), as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. The issue involved in this writ petition was crystallized on 30.05.2022 in following terms:

"Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short `the Act'] and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act both dated 8th April, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2018- 2019 as well as the corrigendum dated 1st April, 2022 and the notice dated 25th March, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the petitioner is a permanent resident of Gurugram, Haryana, yet the impugned notices and orders have been issued by the Assessing Officer, Ward 72(1), Delhi who is not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the Petitioner. He states that the transactions on the basis of which the reassessment proceedings are sought to be initiated against the Petitioner have already been declared by the Petitioner in her return of income for the Financial Year. He further states that the proceedings had been initiated on the ground that the Petitioner has not filed her bank statements which he points out that the Petitioner had never been called upon to submit.

He also points out that the impugned order dated 8th April, 2022 has been issued on entirely different grounds than those alleged by the Respondent in the show cause notice dated 25th March, 2022. He emphasizes that show cause notice dated 25th March, 2022 sought to tax Rs.2,43,87,500/- which had been claimed by the petitioner as deduction under Section 54 of the Act on the ground that the Petitioner had not provided any details regarding the reinvestment of the amount. Pursuant to this the Petitioner filed the deed of purchase of residential property and proof of investment made in bonds. However, in the order dated 8th April, 2022, the Assessing Officer states that the Petitioner has not disclosed the consideration received by her from sale of immovable property and thus the capital gain on the transaction remained undisclosed. It also states that the assessee has not provided the sale deed of the property that was sold for Rs.3,38,33,333/- to verify the sale consideration that was declared by the petitioner and that the assessee has not provided any bank account statement to support her claim under Section 54 of the Act with regards to the payment made for the purchase of the immovable property.

Issue notice.

Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent. He prays for and is permitted to file a counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

Though the Assessing Officer is permitted to pass the assessment order, yet it is directed that the same shall not be given effect to and same shall be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court.

List on 13th October, 2022".

3. On 28.07.2023, we heard learned counsel for both sides and examined the record. After hearing part submissions of both sides on that day, learned counsel for petitioner opted to drop the jurisdictional challenge to the impugned notices and order in the interest of expeditious disposal and on the other hand, learned counsel for respo