Delhi High Court - Orders
Vikas Jain vs Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 29 May, 2023
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7537/2023 & CM Nos.29224-25/2023
VIKAS JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Prakash Kumar and Mr Manish
Kumar, Advs.
versus
ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE
28(1), DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr Standing
Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh,
Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
ORDER
% 29.05.2023 [Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request] CM No.29225/2023
1. Allowed, subject to the petitioner filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing. W.P.(C) 7537/2023 & CM No.29224/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
3. Mr Prakash Kumar, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the impugned notices under Section 148A(b) and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"] have been issued to an entity which is not in existence.
4. It is pointed out that the petitioner was one of the partners in a W.P.(C) 7537/2023 page 1 of 4 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 07/10/2023 at 23:59:05 partnership firm going by the name V.M. Technocoatings. 4.1 It is claimed that this partnership firm was constituted on 01.10.2003. It is also claimed that an Importer Exporter Code (IEC) was allotted to the said firm on 07.03.2005.
4.2 Mr Kumar points out that the firm was reconstituted on 01.01.2010 when two out of the four partners retired.
4.3 It is also pointed out that, ultimately, the firm was dissolved on 23.06.2011.
5. Mr Kumar says that the petitioner carried out the business of the firm, as a proprietor, under the name of the erstwhile firm, i.e., V.M. Technocoatings.
6. Our attention is drawn to the fact that consequent to the dissolution of the partnership firm, on 29.09.2011, a fresh IEC certificate was issued to the petitioner in his capacity as the proprietor. [See page 72 of the case file]. 6.1 It is pointed out that the said certificate bears the Permanent Account Number (PAN) allotted to the petitioner in his individual capacity. 6.3 That this information was furnished to the respondents/revenue, is sought to be demonstrated by referring to the letters dated 16.10.2015 and 06.12.2017 addressed by the petitioner to the respondents/revenue. [See pages 81 & 83 of the case file].
7. Mr Kumar says that despite information having been given, the impugned notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act, beginning with the notice dated 25.02.2023 have been issued in the name of the dissolved firm. 7.1 The first such notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.02.2023 and in a reply filed by the petitioner on 07.03.2023, the fact concerning W.P.(C) 7537/2023 page 2 of 4 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 07/10/2023 at 23:59:05 dissolution of the firm and surrender of its PAN was brought to the fore.
8. It appears that even thereafter, two notices were issued, i.e., on 06.03.2023 and 20.03.2023.
8.1 We are informed that the notice issued on 06.03.2023 was a corrigendum to the earlier notice dated 25.02.2023.
9. In sum, the allegation contained in the last of the three notices i.e., notice dated 20.03.2023 is that the firm (which, according to the petitioner, stood dissolved as far as back as on 23.06.2011) had not filed its return and had undertaken a high value transaction amounting to Rs.1,17,94,438/-.
10. Mr Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, says that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) of the firm is located in Delhi, whereas the JAO of the petitioner is located in Ghaziabad.
11. Mr Maratha says that the notices may have been issued because of lack of communication between the two JAOs.
12. Issue notice.
12.1 Mr Abhishek Maratha, learned standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/revenue.
13. Mr Maratha says that he will return with instructions, having regard to the documents appended to the writ petition.
14. We may also note that it is the petitioner's stand that the imports made by him during the period in issue, i.e., AY 2016-17 have been disclosed in the books of account and assessed to customs duty.
15. Mr Kumar has also pointed out that there was a mistake with regard to information concerning assessment pertaining to customs duty which was W.P.(C) 7537/2023 page 3 of 4 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 07/10/2023 at 23:59:06 rectified.
15.1 In this regard, reference has been made to the whomsoever certificate appended on page 161 of the case file.
16. List the matter on 09.10.2023.
17. In case, instructions are received to resist the writ petition, counter- affidavit will be filed at least five days before the next date of hearing.
18. In the meanwhile, no precipitate action will be taken against the petitioner
19. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J GIRISH KATHPALIA, J MAY 29, 2023 aj Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 7537/2023 page 4 of 4 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 07/10/2023 at 23:59:06