Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sahil Singla vs Ito, Ward 34(1), Delhi on 20 September, 2022

Author: Manmohan

Bench: Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

                              $~1
                              *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                              +      W.P.(C) 13048/2022 & CM APPLs. 39527-39528/2022

                                     SAHIL SINGLA                                      ..... Petitioner
                                                         Through: Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate with
                                                                  Mr. Venketesh Chaurasia and
                                                                  Mr. Achint Jain, Advocates.
                                                         versus

                                     ITO, WARD 34(1), DELHI                      ..... Respondent
                                                    Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate and
                                                             Ms. Easha Kadian, Advocate along with
                                                             Mr. Lal Babu Sah, Assessing Officer.
                                     CORAM:
                                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
                                     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

                                                         ORDER

% 20.09.2022 On 8th September, 2022, this Court had passed the following order:- "CM APPL.39528/2022 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 13048/2022 & CM APPL.39527/2022 Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 27th July, 2022 and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 27th July, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the letter dated nd 22 May, 2022 was issued by the Respondent forwarding one page taken from the Insight Portal giving case related information details. She points out that these details pertain to some other assessee named Ruchika Jain and not the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that though the reassessment is being sought to be carried out on the allegation that the petitioner had made fictitious purchases of unlisted shares through an entity named 'Asian Bulls Capital Private Limited', yet the factual position is that the Petitioner has not made any purchase of unlisted shares in the year under consideration through M/s Asian Bulls Capital Private Limited. She further states that the Petitioner has not claimed any exemption under Section 10(38) in the year under consideration.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the petitioner being an individual, no benefit could have arisen to him by fictitious purchases, unless some amount comes in his bank account, which is not a fact on record She also states that the allegation is for an amount less than Rs.50,00,000/- and hence, the notice dated 28th June, 2022 and subsequent notice dated 29th June, 2022 are barred by limitation as per the amended Section 149 of the Act.

Issue notice. Mr.Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents-revenue, accepts notice. He is directed to produce relevant record on the next date of hearing. The Assessing Officer shall be personally present in Court on the next date of hearing.

List on 20th September, 2022."

In pursuance to the aforesaid Order, Mr. Lal Babu Sah, Assessing Officer, is personally present in Court. He has, today in Court, handed over the file pertaining to the petitioner.

A perusal of the file reveals that the alleged transaction of fictitious purchase of unlisted shares had been carried out by the petitioner in the Financial Year 2016-17 and not in the Assessment Year 2016-17 as alleged in the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

Mr. Lal Babu Sah, Assessing Officer admits that there are mistakes in the notice under Section 148A(b) and in the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. He, however, states that the mistake in the name of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:21.09.2022 18:29:19 assessee as well as in the assessment year was due to incorrect information being uploaded on the Insight Portal.

This Court is of the view that even if there was mistake in the information uploaded on the Insight Portal, the Assessing Officer, after verifying the original record, should have taken steps to get the error rectified.

In any event, as the Assessing Officer in the impugned order has also not dealt with the submissions and contentions advanced by the petitioner- assessee, this Court sets aside the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and Notice issued under Section 148, both dated 27th July, 2022, of the Act and remands the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

It is clarified that the Assessing Officer shall pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act qua Assessment Year 2016-17 only. If the law permits the respondent-Revenue to take further steps in the matter, they shall be at liberty to do so. Needless to state that if and when such steps are taken and if the petitioner has a grievance, he shall be at liberty to take its remedies in accordance with law.

Accordingly, present writ petition and applications stand disposed of.

MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 20, 2022 js Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:21.09.2022 18:29:19