SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Vidisha Singhal – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward 29(1) Delhi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

CM APPL.46232/2022 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 14989/2022 & CM APPL.46231/2022

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') dated 29th May, 2022, order passed under Section 148A(d) dated 22nd July, 2022 and impugned notice issued under Section 148 dated 23rd July, 2022.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in the Section 148A(b) notice, transactions worth Rs.50,40,000/- having escaped assessment were attributed to Mr.Dayanand Singh and transaction worth Rs.48,54,000/- was attributed to Lifeline Securities Limited. He, however, states that in the impugned order under Section 148A(d), the entities and the amount have been swapped i.e. Rs.50,40,000/- transaction is now attributed to Lifeline Securities Limited and not to Mr.Dayanand Singh.

3. In pursuance to the last order, the Assessing Officer is personally present in Court today. He admits that the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is riddled with mistakes. He further admits that in the notice issu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top