Delhi High Court - Orders
Ashok Kumar Makhija vs Union Of India (Through Secretary) And ... on 3 February, 2023
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 16680/2022 & CM APPL. 52551/2022
ASHOK KUMAR MAKHIJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Abhinav Mehrotra and Mr Kalrav
Mehrotra, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA (THROUGH SECRETARY)
AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Ranvir Singh, Adv. for R-1/UOI.
Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing
Counsel for R-2 & 3/Revenue.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORDER
% 03.02.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
1. This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "Act"]. 1.1 Besides this, challenge is also laid to the order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act.
2. The principal allegation against the petitioner is, that there are huge cash deposits made by him between 03.12.2016 and 07.12.2016 which involves his proprietorship concern i.e., Neel Kanth Traders.
3. Mr Abhinav Mehrotra, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that this very issue concerning the deposit of cash proceeds received against W.P.(C) 16680/2022 page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:09.02.2023 11:11:12 sales in the demonetisation period, spanning between 08.11.2016 and 30.12.2016 was examined by the respondents/revenue, whereupon an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on 28.12.2019.
4. In support of the plea that a thorough scrutiny was conducted, Mr Mehrotra has drawn our attention to various notices, including a show-cause notice issued by the respondents/revenue.
5. Inter alia, in this regard, reference was made to the documents appended on pages 77, 81, 114, 117, 160, 163, 165 and 167, of the case file. These are the documents which concern show-cause notices issued to the petitioner, and the corresponding responses sent qua the same.
6. Prima facie, it appears that the very same transactions had been examined.
7. The allegation, that the petitioner, during the aforementioned period i.e., 03.12.2016 and 07.12.2016 had deposited Rs.3.55 crores in the subject bank account appears to have been scrutinized, while framing assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act.
8. Issue notice.
8.1 Mr Ranvir Singh accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1/Union of India (UOI) while Mr Abhishek Maratha accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3/revenue.
9. Counter-affidavit will be filed within the next four weeks. 9.1 Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
10. List the matter on 14.09.2023.
W.P.(C) 16680/2022 page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:09.02.2023 11:11:12
11. In the meanwhile, there shall be a stay on the operation of the impugned notice and order.
12. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J FEBRUARY 3, 2023 aj Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 16680/2022 page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:09.02.2023 11:11:12