IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.8621 of 2022

Date of Decision : 27.04.2022

Satish Kumar Jindal

&.Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) Ludhiana

&..Respondent

CORAM : HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present :

Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate assisted by

Mr. Manpreet S. Kanda, Advocate

for the petitioner.

PANKAJ JAIN, J

.

By way of present writ petition the petitioner has laid challenge

to notice dated 23^rd March, 2022 issued under Clause (b) of Section 148-A

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 8the Act9) (Annexure P-1), notice

dated 7^th April, 2022 (Annexure P-4) issued under Section 148 and the order

dated 7^th April, 2022 (Annexure P-3) passed under Clause (d) of Section

148-A of the Act.

2.

Petitioner an assessee to Income Tax filed his Income Tax

Return for the Assessment Year 2018-19 which is stated to have been

accepted by the respondent under Section 143(1) of the Act. Petitioner was

served with notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Act on 23^rd March, 2022.

As per the said notice, information in the case of the assessee has been

flagged on the Insight Portal in accordance with Risk Management

DEEPAK KUMAR

2022.05.06 17:36

I attest to the accuracy

of this document

CWP No.8621 of 2022

2

Strategy Formulated by the CBDT, New Delhi. As per which, during

search at the residence of one Sumit Jindal, some documents were seized

and it has come to the notice that RKS Builders have made payments of

Rs.4,07,50,000/- for the purpose of purchase of property. Since the assessee

was partner of M/s RKS Builders at the relevant point of time to the extent

of 20% share hence, it is stated that the information suggested that the

income chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2018-19 had escaped

assessment.

3.

As per the petitioner request was made to the authorities for

providing information vide Communication dated 28^th March, 2022. It is

claimed by the Petitioner that on 7^th of April, 2022, the respondent passed

order under Clause (d) of Section 148-A of the Act without providing

information and issued notice under Section 148 for reassessing the income

of the assessee. It is against these proceedings that the petitioner has

approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner claims that there is no tangible

material linking the purchase of property by M/s RKS Builders to the

assessee. Thus, there being absence of live-link between the statement of

income of the RKS Builders and the assess, the assumption of jurisdiction

at the hands of Assessing Officer is bad in law. It has been further asserted

by Counsel for the petitioner that since the authorities failed to supply the

requisite documents to the petitioner before passing of impugned order

dated 7th April, 2022, the action of the Authorities is in violation of law

DEEPAK KUMAR

2022.05.06 17:36

I attest to the accuracy

of this document

CWP No.8621 of 2022

3

laid down by Supreme Court in the case of 'GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.

vs. Income Tax Officer and others', (2003) 1 SCC 72, reiterated by

Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Capital Financial Services

Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1) and

others - Writ Petition No.546 of 2022, decided on 15th February, 2022

and law laid down by Delhi High Court in the case of 'Sabh

Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax', 2017 SCC

OnLine Del 10863.

5.

Senior Counsel further asserts that the firm i.e. M/s RKS

Builders and the petitioner are different individuals and different assessees

for the purpose of Income Tax Act thus, for any escapement of income at

the hands of firm he ought not have been saddled with the proceedings of

reassessment.

6.

We have heard counsel for the petitioner and have carefully

gone through the record of the case.

7.

Admittedly, in the present case the petitioner was provided

with reason