Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3982
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Girish Kathpalia, JJ.
Jitender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward 35(5) Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 10784 of 2023 & CM Nos.41806-07 of 2023
Decided On : 16-08-2023
Ms Surbhi Chandra, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr Vipul Agrawal, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Gibran Naushad and Ms Sakshi Shairwal, Standing Counsels, for the Respondents.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that reassessment proceedings must be justified and relevant to the petitioner, and the petitioner should be given an opportunity to respond to the documents and present their case.
Headnote:
Income Tax Act - Assessment Year 2016-17 - Reassessment proceedings triggered against petitioner concerning deceased assessee - Impugned transactions not related to petitioner - Impugned order set aside with liberty to petitioner to respond to documents and AO to ascertain beneficiary of money from land sale
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition concerns Assessment Year 2016-17 and is directed against the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reassessment proceedings were triggered against the petitioner concerning the deceased assessee, but the petitioner claimed that the transactions in question were not related to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Assessing Officer to give the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the documents emerged upon inquiries and to ascertain the beneficiary of the money received upon the sale of the land.
Issues: The principal issue was whether the reassessment proceedings triggered against the petitioner concerning the deceased assessee were justified, considering the transactions in question were not related to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of connection between the impugned transactions and the petitioner, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and granting the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the documents emerged upon inquiries.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the impugned order set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to give the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the documents and ascertain the beneficiary of the money from the land sale.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM No.41807/2023
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 10784/2023 & CM No.41806/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. Issue notice.
2.1. Mr Vipul Agrawal, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.
3. Given the direction that we propose to issue, Mr Agrawal says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the court.
3.1. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage itself.
4. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
5. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"].
6. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the reassessment proceeding has been triggered against him concerning, one, Mr Raj Singh, i.e., the original assessee who expired on 24.06.2016.
7. It is the petitioner's case that the transactions in issue do not concern him and, therefore, the reassessment proceedings could not have been triggered qua him vis-`a-vis the deceased assessee.
8. We may note that there are three transactions referred to in the impugned order.
8.1. First, the deposit of cash of Rs.20,79,000/- in the saving bank account held in ICICI Bank.
8.2. Second, the transaction relating to sale of land whereby the deceased assessee supposedly received Rs.6,18,33,334/- against the said transaction which was deposited in his bank account.
8.3. Third, the penalty on cash transaction of Rs.4,99,930/-.
9. According to Ms Surbhi Chandra, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, the subject land qua which inquiry sought to be made and
10. Ms Chandra says that the petitioner is the nephew and not a direct descendent of the deceased assessee.
11. In sum, Ms Chandra says that the petitioner has had nothing to do with the impugned transaction and does not represent the estate of the deceased assessee.
12. Mr Agrawal, on the other hand, has taken us through the impugned order.
12.1. The Assessing Officer (AO) in the impugned order has adverted to two parcels of land.
13. According to the AO, his inquiries have revealed that on 17.04.2015, Mr Raj Singh before his death had gifted one parcel to the petitioner and sold the other one qua which the aforementioned consideration was received, i.e., Rs.6,18,33,334/-.
14. The parcel of land which was gifted to the petitioner as per the AO's inquiries ad-measured 12 Bighas 10 Biswas and was located in Village Khera Kalan, Delhi.
14.1. Insofar as the land which was sold by Mr Raj Singh, it admeasured 10 Bighas 12 Biswas and was also located in Village Khera Kalan, Delhi.
15. It appears that the documents that emerged during the inquiries made by the AO, which are, broadly, referred to hereinabove, and in the order passed under Section 148A(d) were never put to the petitioner.
16. Given this position, we are of the view that the best way forward would be to set aside the impugned order with liberty to the AO to give an opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the documents which have emerged upon inquiries carried out by the AO.
17. The AO will also ascertain as to who is the beneficiary of the money which was received upon sale of the aforementioned land.
17.1. For this purpose, the AO will issue a notice to the petitioner which will indicate the date and time of hearing.
18. Liberty will be given to the petitioner to file a reply and place on record any documents which he wishes to rely upon.
19. Needless to add, the AO will pass a speaking order; a copy of which will be furnished to the petitioner.
20. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
21. Consequently, the pending interlocutory application shall stand closed.
22. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of th
