Court emphasized that reassessment notices must consider all disclosures made by the taxpayer, reaffirming the principle of natural justice when reviewing prior returns.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral):

CM APPL. 35473/3033 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 11872/2022 and CM APPL. 35472/2022 (for stay)

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') as well as the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act both dated 30th July, 2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a company engaged in the business of sale and purchase of properties and it had filed its return of income on 15th January, 2018 for the AY 2017-18 declaring an income of Rs.16,36,874/-. She states that the Petitioner was issued a letter dated 25th May, 2022 in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 providing the information on the basis of which the income of the Petitioner was sought to be reassessed which alleged that the Petitioner had violated Section 269SS of the Act as it had sold a property of Rs.56,00,000/-during F.Y. 2016-17 to Kanhaiyalal and had received Rs.7,04,000/-in cash. She further states that the Petitioner in its reply dated 25th May, 2022 to the Respondents informed them that the sale of the impugned property was duly recorded as the turnover of the Petitioner and a penalty amounting to Rs.7,04,000/-under Section 271D read with Section 269SS of the Act had already been levied on the Petitioner vide order dated 12th June, 2019.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner appealed against the penalty order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [`CIT(A)'] under Section 271D of the Act and later opted for settling the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020. She states that the Petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,76,000/-and an order for full and final settlement of tax arrears under Section 5(2) read with Section 6 of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 in Form No.5 was issued to the Petitioner on 13th September, 2021. She further states that the Petitioner had informed the Respondents that the Petitioner had sold the property at a consideration equivalent to the Stamp Valuation of Rs.56,00,000/-on which the due taxes under Section 194 IA had been deducted.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondents passed the impugned order dated 30th July, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act, rejecting the contentions of the Petitioner stating that the amount of Rs.56,00,000/-(consideration received against the property) was not accounted for and the same had escaped income. She points out that in the show cause notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, there was no allegation against the Petitioner requiring it to account for the receipt of Rs.56,00,000/-and moreover, the Petitioner had disclosed the fact of the sale of the property for a consideration of Rs.56,00,000/-as a part of its turnover on the basis of which the penalty under Section 271D of the Act had been levied on the Petitioner by the authorities. She also relies upon the reply to the show cause notice dated 25th May, 2022 wherein, it has been stated as under :

"In respect to the matter, we would like to submit that the assessee company has filed Its Income Tax return on 15.01.2018 vide online acknowledgment receipt no. 365077471150118 for the AY 2017 -18 (as per annexure A-2) after getting the books of accounts audited U/S 44AB of the Income tax Act 1961, whereby the above referred sale of Flat to Mr. Kanhaiya Lal for Rs 56,00,000/has been duly considered in the turnover reported in the Audited Profit and Loss Account for t