Delhi High Court - Orders
Umesh Chandra Sharma vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 47(1) Delhi ... on 16 May, 2023
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6425/2023 and CM APPL. 25306/2023
UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Vivek Inder Paul Bansal,
Advocate.
versus
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 47(1) DELHI & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr Shailendera Singh, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
ORDER
% 16.05.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
1. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
2. Via this writ petition, challenge has been laid to the order dated 21.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"].
2.1 In addition thereto, the petitioner also seeks to assail the consequential notice of even date i.e., 21.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 2.2 Besides this, the petitioner has also assailed the notice dated 06.03.2023 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.
3. Concededly, according to Mr Vivek Inder Paul Bansal, the reassessment proceedings against the petitioner got triggered on account of the petitioner having acquired two PAN numbers.
4. The record shows, that the two PANs allocated to the petitioner are AABPS3614F (hereinafter referred to as "first PAN") and AREPS2819J (hereinafter referred to as "second PAN").
W.P.(C) 6425/2023 Page 1 of 3This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/09/2023 at 10:00:41
5. It is the petitioner's case, that all along for its exports, he has been using only the second PAN. The petitioner also draws our attention to the fact, that for the income tax returns filed for the period spanning between AY 2010-11 to 2022-23, the petitioner has been using only the second PAN [See Annexure P4 (Colly) appended on pages 37 to 49 of the case file].
6. The impugned order dated 21.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, however, adverts to the first PAN, which according to the petitioner has not been used by him for registering exports.
7. It is, thus, the petitioner's case, that high value transactions, which form the basis for triggering reassessment proceedings amounting to Rs.1,19,95,668/- in fact, have already been offered for tax. The petitioner says, that the reconciliation concerning the said figure has been set forth in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, the assertions made in paragraph 15 and 16 are set forth hereafter:
"xxxx xxxx xxxx
(v) The export turnover of the Petitioner is duly supported by recordsavailable on the portal of IEC (No. 0589013629) of the Petitionerwhich for the relevant F.Y. 2015-16 has been described to the AOrelating to 12 invoices generated during the F. Y. 2015-16. ThePetitioner submitted copies of all the 12 invoices along-withsupporting documents in the shape of:-
a. statement of bank realization b. copy of invoices generated at the site of DirectorateGeneral of Foreign Trade (DGFT) c. Form SDF d. Airway Bill e. Invoice f. Packing list
16. To substantiate that the correct export turnover is only a W.P.(C) 6425/2023 Page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/09/2023 at 10:00:41 sum of Rs.63,11,609.70 and not a sum of Rs. 1,19,95,668/- as has been alleged. Themisinformation possessed by the Department is only due to a mistake inthe generation of shipping bill dated 08.10.2015 which has later beenmanually corrected by the Customs Authorities by specific order for whichthe details have already been mentioned."
8. It is, thus, Mr Bansal's submission, that if the concerned Assessing Officer were to examine this facet, it would get revealed, that there is, in fact, no escapement of income chargeable to tax.
9. In other words, as indicated at the outset, the petitioner claims that the confusion cast on account of the first PAN [which is although alive but not used by the petitioner] has led to the respondents/revenue triggering reassessment proceedings against the petitioner.
10. We may note, that the Certificate of Importer-Exporter Code (IEC), which appears to have been issued on 01.04.1989 refers to the second PAN [See page 51 of the case file].
11. Given this position, MrShailendera Singh, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, will return with instructions, as to whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer can grant a personal hearing to the petitioner, before he proceeds further in the matter.
12. List for this purpose on 30.05.2023.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J GIRISH KATHPALIA, J MAY 16, 2023/ tr Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 6425/2023 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/09/2023 at 10:00:42