Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

Rajnish Puri vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax - (High Court of Delhi) (05 Aug 2022)

Allegation in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act has to be precise not vague

MANU/DE/2796/2022

Direct Taxation

Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

In the present matter, the assessment of the Assessee was reopened on the basis of information uploaded on INSIGHT portal stating that search under Section 132 of the Act had been conducted on 11th September, 2018 in the case of Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah of Ahmedabad and the search had resulted in seizure of unaccounted cash of Rs.19.37 crores (relating to accommodation entries and commission earned thereon), along with incriminating digital as well as documentary evidences. As per the impugned Order, the Assessee, was found to be a beneficiary of accommodation entry of fictitious loan of Rs.63,06,250 during Financial Year 2013-14.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that, the information on which the reassessment proceeding had been initiated was incorrect and the assumption of jurisdiction was completely flawed.

Both in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act as well as in the Dissemination of Information note supplied to the Petitioner, the allegation is of a 'fictitious loan' and not 'fictitious long term capital gain' of Rs.63,06,250.

This Court is of the view that, the allegation in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act has to be precise, so that the assessee has a fair and reasonable opportunity to put forward its defence. In the event, the allegation in the notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act is incorrect or vague, the Assessee would be deprived of an opportunity of putting forward its defence and Section 148A(b) would be rendered nugatory.

The impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act are set aside and the Petitioner-Asseessee is given an opportunity to file a response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of IT Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act within four weeks thereafter. Petition disposed off.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   NOTICE   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved