Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 3]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Manju Somani vs Ito Ward 70 (1) on 1 December, 2022

Author: Rajiv Shakdher

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher

              $~58
              *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

              +             W.P.(C) 16515/2022 & CM No.51894/2022

                            MANJU SOMANI                               ......Petitioner
                                               Through:      Mr Anand Chaudhuri, Adv.

                                               versus

                            ITO WARD 70 (1)                              ......Respondent
                                               Through:      Mr Sunil Agarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel
                                                             and Mr Tushar Gupta, Jr. Standing
                                                             Counsel with Mr Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv.

                            CORAM:
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
                                          ORDER

% 01.12.2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.07.2022 issued under Section 148A(d), and the notice of even date i.e., 26.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "Act"].

2. The record shows, that the petitioner, under the earlier regime, was issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 29.06.2021.

3. After the new regime had kicked in, the notice dated 23.05.2022 was issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agrawal (2022) SCC OnLine SC 543 3.1 A perusal of the notice dated 23.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act and the impugned order dated 26.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) shows, that they are not aligned.

              W.P.(C) 16515/2022                                                       page 1 of 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIPIN
KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:15.12.2022
20:24:17
               3.2           Besides this, a perusal of the order dated 26.07.2022 passed under Section

148A(d) of the Act shows, that the allegation is principally against JM Financial Asset Management Ltd., which runs and manages a fund, and not the assessee. 3.3 Broadly, it is alleged that the fund has distributed capital, which has been received by the beneficiaries, including the petitioner, in the form of dividend, enabling them to claim exemption under the Act.

4. The said order does not show, on the face of it, that there is any live link between the petitioner and JM Financial Asset management Ltd., which is running the subject fund.

5. Issue notice.

5.1 Mr Sunil Agarwal accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/revenue.

6. Mr Agarwal says that he will return with instructions. 6.1 If instructions are received to resist the writ petition, counter-affidavit will be filed before the next date of hearing.

7. List the matter on 16.12.2022.

8. In the meanwhile, there will be a stay on the operation of the impugned notice dated 26.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, and the impugned order dated 26.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, concerning Assessment Year 2016-2017.

9. Learned counsel for the parties will file their written submissions, not exceeding three pages each, before the next date of hearing.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J DECEMBER 1, 2022 aj Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 16515/2022 page 2 of 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:15.12.2022 20:24:17