Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 32729
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 20.11.2024 + W.P.(C) 17326/2022 DAISY DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1)
NEW DELHI ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr Kapil Goel and Mr Sandeep Goel, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON’BLE MS JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 24.07.2022 (hereafter the impugned order) passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) as well as a notice dated 24.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act.
2. The Assessing Officer had issued a notice dated 20.05.2022 under Section 148(A)(b) of the Act for Assessment Year (AY) 2015- 16, inter alia, stating that information was received through insight portal from the Investigation Wing to the effect that the petitioner was a beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by one Sh. Joginder
Pal Gupta (DAG Group). The relevant extract of the said notice is set out below:
“GIST OF INFORMATION:
In this case information was received through Insight portal dated: 25.03.2021 from the office of Investigation Wing, Delhi, wherein it has been stated that during search and seizure operation conducted on Sh Joginder Pal Gupta on 23.12.2019 in the case of DAG group of Sh Joginder Pal Gupta. During the investigation it was established that he is an entry provider who controlled several shell companies and provided accomodation entry to beneficiaries. M/s Daisy Distributors Pvt Ltd is one such beneficiary which received Rs 3,13,00,000/- from entities (M/s Anupam Buildmart Pvt Ltd, Nicky Marmo Ltd, Bell Indus Fibercon Pvt Ltd, Bij Buildcon Pvt Ltd, RSKM Traders Pvt Ltd and Olwin Garments Pvt Ltd) controlled & managed by Sh Joginder Pal Gupta during F.Y. 2014-15 which remained unverified.
1. You are requested to submit your reply with documentary evidences in compliance to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred supra, within 15 days from the date of issuance of this letter. The reply is to be submitted electronically in e- proceedings facility through your account in e-filling portal of Income Tax Department.
2. Your reply, if any, will be considered before passing order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, if deemed fit.”
3. The said notice also set out the information details as available on the insight portal. A tabular statement briefly setting out the entries as forwarded to the petitioner along with the said notice is set out below:
Information Details
| S. No . | Source PAN | Source PAN Name | Informatio n FY | Informatio n Type | Informatio n Value | Informatio n Date | Remarks |
| 1 | AAFCA3263 M | Anupam Buildma rt Pvt. Ltd. | 2014-15 | Fictitious Loan | 9000000 | Beneficiar y | |
| 2 | AAACN3607 P | Nicky Marmo Ltd. | 2014-15 | Fictitious Loan | 5000000 | Beneficiar y | |
| 3 | AAACB2764 K | Bell Indus Fibreco m Pvt Ltd. | 2014-15 | Fictitious Loan | 3000000 | Beneficiar y | |
| 4 | AAECB6648 Q | Bij Buildcon Pvt Ltd | 2014-15 | Fictitious Loan | 3000000 | Beneficiar y | |
| 5 | AAACE0766 E | RSKM Traders Pvt Ltd | 2014-15 | Fictitious Loan | 2500000 | Beneficiar y | |
| 6 | AAFCA3263 M | Anupam Buildma rt Pvt Ltd | 2014-15 | Fictitious Loan | 2800000 | Beneficiar y | |
| 7 | AADCA4442 Q | Olwin Garment s Pvt Ltd | 2014-15 | Fictitious Loan | 5000000 | Beneficiar y |
4. The petitioner responded to the said notice raising several objections including that the information reflecting an amount of ₹90,00,000/- as fictitious loan transaction with M/s Anupam Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. was incorrect as no loan was taken from the said entity. The petitioner also stated that the total amount of the transactions, which is alleged to have escaped assessment, was also incorrect.
5. The petitioner acknowledged that it had received advances but claimed that it had repaid the same and therefore, there was no credit outstanding at the end of the financial year 2014-15. The petitioner also forwarded copies of the ledger accounts of various entities. In addition, the petitioner claimed that the assumption of the jurisdiction was invalid. The petitioner claimed that since the proceedings were based on information collected during the search of a person other than the petitioner, the only recourse available to the Assessing Officer (AO)
was to proce
