Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
Usha Rani Girdhar - Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward 36(1), Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 16090 of 2022 & C.M. Nos. 50220-50221 of 2022
Decided On : 25-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to income tax notice issued. (Para 1) |
| 2. argument on limitation for tax assessment. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's observation on mistakes in notices. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. legal principle on sufficiency of notice details. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. verdict on writ petition and notice set aside. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral):
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') dated 25th June, 2021 as well as the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 21st May, 2022, order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 29th July, 2022 and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 30th July, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act are on distinct and separate grounds. In support of his contention, he refers to and relies upon the notice dated 21st May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act as well as the order dated 29th July, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, wherein it has been stated as under:
A) Notice dated 21st May, 2022
"As per information received from ITO Ward 35(1) it is found that the assessee has sold the property
The details of the financial transactions with respect the sale of property are as udder:
| S. No. | Address of Property sold | Name of the buyer | Sale consideration | Circle Rate | Date of sale |
| 1. | 1804,2nd Floor Outram Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi | Usha Rani Girdhar | 35,00,000/- | 12,50,000/- | 7.12.2016 |
As per information, it is found that the assessee has sold a property for the consideration of Rs. 35,00,000/-, however, circle rate cost of the property was Rs. 12,50,000/-. It is found that assessee has filed her ITR for the A.Y 2017-18 declaring income of Rs. 3,47,281/-whereas as per ITR the assessee has not declared the capital gain income on sale of above property. As per the stamp duty authority the value of the property sold by the assessee was of Rs. 12,50,000/-whereas the purchaser paid as per sale deed a consideration of Rs. 35,00,000/-.
B) Order dated 29th July, 2022
"4.
.......The gist of information provided to the assessee is as under:
"As per information received from ITO Ward 35(1) it is found that the assessee has sold the property
The details of the financial transactions with respect the sale of property are as udder:
| S. No. | Address of property Sold | Name of the buyer | Sale consideration | Circle Rate | Date of sale |
| 1. | House No. C-1/1969, Rohini Sector-34, Delhi | Usha Rani Girdhar | Rs.10,00,000/- | Rs. 22,50,000/- | 7.12.2016 |
As per information, it is found that the assessee has sold a property for the consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-, however, circle rate cost of the property was Rs. 22,50,000/-. It is found that assessee has filed her ITR for the A.Y 2017-18 declaring income of Rs. 3,47,281/-whereas as per ITR the assessee has not declared the capital gain income on sale of above property. As per the stamp duty authority the value of the property sold by the assessee was of Rs. 22,50,000/-whereas the purchaser paid as per sale deed a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-......."
3. He further states that the impugned proceedings for the Assessment Year 2017-18 are barred by limitation in terms of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act as the income alleged to have escaped assessment is Rs. 11,25,000/-i.e. less than Rs. 50,00,000 despite the fact that in terms of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, proceedings can be initiated after expiry of three years from end of relevant assessment year only if, inter-alia, the amount alleged to have escaped assessment is Rs. 50,00,000/-or more.
4. Issue notice. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned senior standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-revenue. He states that there has been a mistake in Section 148A(b) notice that was issued in the present instance. He states that the mistake has occurred as incomplete informat
Notices under Income Tax Act must contain clear allegations to allow adequate defense, failing which they may be set aside.
The court established that failing to consider a taxpayer's submission violates procedural fairness in tax assessments, necessitating the annulment of prior notices.
The main legal point established is the requirement for a prior show cause notice to consider the assessee's response and the prohibition on raising new issues not previously raised in the show cause....
For a valid reassessment under Income Tax Act, prior recording of reasons for income escapement is mandatory; failure to do so renders the notice void, allowing proceedings on a subsequent properly s....
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.
Administrative orders can be set aside by courts if found to be flawed in execution, ensuring rectification of inaccuracies in legal processes.
Court emphasized that reassessment notices must consider all disclosures made by the taxpayer, reaffirming the principle of natural justice when reviewing prior returns.
Point of law: Petitioner is admittedly covered by proviso (c) to Section 148A, this Court is of the view that the impugned order and notice are untenable in law.
Section 149 reads as no notice under section 148 shall be issued for relevant assessment year.
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
