THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE NARSI NG RAO NANDI KONDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.39706 of 2022 WRI T PETI TI ON No.38716 of 2022 WRI T PETI TI ON No.39666 of 2022 AND WRI T PETI TI ON No.1219 of 2023

COMMON ORDER:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.

R.S. Associates for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.38716 of 2022; appearing for Mr. V.Aneesh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.39666 of 2022, and also appearing for Mr. Dundu Manmohan along Mr. Dundu Sashank, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.39706 of 2022, Mr. Mandala Nagendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1219 of 2023; and Mr. J.V. Prasad & Ms. K.Mamata, learned Senior Standing Counsels for the Income Tax Department appearing on behalf of the respondents / Revenue.

2. Since the issue involved in these batch of Writ Petitions is one and same, they have been taken up and heard together and are decided by this Common Order. However, we first intend to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No.39706 of 2022.

3. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly ‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year 2020-21 vide Document IdentificationNo.(DIN)ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022-23/1046122105(1)

(for short the ‘impugned order’).

4. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner M/s. Raja Pushpa Properties Pvt. Ltd. filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2020-21 on 10.12.2020 declaring a total taxable income of Rs.31,87,26,740/- which was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices under Section 143(2) of the Act were issued and further the respondent No.1 issued detailed notice under Section 142(1) of the Act to furnish all the details regarding the unexplained income. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer raised queries regarding ‘other long term liabilities’ amounting to Rs.246 crores shown in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2020. The petitioner clarified on multiple occasions through detailed replies dated 15.03.2022, 22.08.2022 and 20.09.2022 stating that these liabilities pertains to advances received from customers for purchase of land parcels ranging from 1 to 4 acres each, and explicitly stated that these were not advances for flat or villa bookings as was being incorrectly presumed by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner provided details like permanent account numbers (PAN), complete address, direct contact telephone numbers, written confirmation letters from the advance-paying parties, details of the nature of property transactions, extent of land agreed to be purchased, dates of receipt of advances, and complete ledger accounts for 11 identified parties involving aggregate advances of Rs.134 crores, specifically and expressly requesting the Assessing Officer to contact the parties directly on the telephone numbers provided if further verification or clarification was needed, demonstrating full transparency and willingness to cooperate.

5. Despite the detailed submissions and comprehensive documentary evidence furnished, the respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice dated 20.09.2022 under Section 144B(1)(xii) of the Act proposing substantial additions on the fundamentally erroneous and factually incorrect premise that the advances were received from flat / villa purchasers who were companies. This premise was wrong on two counts: firstly, the advances pertained to land purchases and not flats / villas, and secondly, out of the 11 parties who had given advances, five were individuals and only six were corporate entities, not all companies as assumed.

6. The petitioner promptly objected to this material mischaracterization through a detailed letter dated 23.09.2022 once again reiterating with