Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, GIRISH KATHPALIA
Arun Khanna – Appellant
Versus
Ito, Ward 63 (1) New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral) - Via the instant writ petition, a challenge is laid to the order dated 19.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"]. 1.1 Besides this, the petitioner also seeks to assail the consequential notice of even date, i.e., 19.07.2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act.
2. Both the impugned order and notice concern Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.
3. The record shows that the principal allegation against the petitioner is that he is a beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by, one, Mr Rajnish Garg.
3.1. In this context, it is alleged that the petitioner was a beneficiary of Rs.50,94,24,738/- which, according to the respondents/revenue, stood credited in the bank accounts maintained with HDFC Bank and DCB Bank in the period in issue, i.e., Financial Year (FY) 2014-15 (AY 2015-16).
4. The record shows that this allegation was embedded in the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Act, i.e., under the old regime, which obtained prior to the Finance Act 2021 [in short, "F.A. 2021"] being in force.
5. Concededly, F.A. 2021 was brought into force from 01.04.2021. The respondents/revenu
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for actionable material and the significance of discrepancies in assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The principle that once a query is raised and answered, the Assessing Officer forms an opinion, making the reassessment proceedings invalid.
Notice u/s.148 uploaded on portal post 01.04.2021 attracts s.148A regime; non-compliance with procedure and Supreme Court directions, coupled with s.149 time-bar for AY 2014-15, renders reassessment ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for accurate and substantiated information to trigger reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, and the court's authori....
Notice under Section 148 was quashed due to lack of timely issuance and failure to substantiate the belief of income escapement with required cogent material, constituting jurisdictional errors.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
