Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Adm Agro Industries Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 10 November, 2022

Author: Manmohan

Bench: Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

                              $~4
                              *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                              +     W.P.(C) 14713/2022 & CM APPLs. 45144-45/2022

                                    ADM AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE
                                    LIMITED                                ..... Petitioner
                                                Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya
                                                          Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani &
                                                          Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.


                                                       versus


                                    DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
                                    TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI                              ..... Respondent
                                                       Through:     Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing
                                                                    Counsel for Revenue, Mr. Vipul
                                                                    Agrawal & Mr. Parth Semwal, Jr.
                                                                    Standing Counsels.

                              CORAM:
                              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
                              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
                                                       ORDER

% 10.11.2022 CM APPL. 45145/2022 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, this application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 14713/2022 & CM APPL. 45144/2022 (for stay)

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 23rd July, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:11.11.2022 18:37:02 'Act'), order dated 23rd July, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 26th May, 2022 and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto for Assessment Year ('AY') 2013-14.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that reassessment proceedings have been initiated on the allegation that the Petitioner is engaged in bogus transactions with Rohit Bharat Nilakhe (Prop. M/s Adima Impex) and has made bogus sales amounting to Rs. 67,17,097/- and bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 13,02,000/- and hence income to the extent of Rs. 80,19,097/- has escaped assessment.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that scrutiny assessment had already been concluded for the concerned assessment year and in the absence of failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts, reassessment proceedings could not be initiated. He states that all facts, documents and evidences are already on record and reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated for re-examination/re-appraisal of material already available on record as the same would constitute a mere change of opinion.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the information relied upon by the Respondent does not belong to the Petitioner and the Respondent have merely acted upon suspicion and without any application of mind. He states that the Petitioner has not undertaken any transaction with M/s Adima Impex and the allegation of the Respondent that the Petitioner has entered into bogus sale and purchase transaction is factually incorrect.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in the Section 148A(d) order, the Respondents have completely ignored the response of the Petitioner and only stated that evidences have not been filed. He states that it Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:11.11.2022 18:37:02 is not possible for the Petitioner to prove a negative, apart from filing all the documents in the original assessment proceedings, which has already been done.

6. Mr. Vipul Agrawal, learned senior standing counsel for the Respondent, Revenue, states that he has received instructions from the Assessing Officer by way of an e-mail dated 20th October, 2022. The relevant portion of the said e-mail is reproduced hereinbelow:

"It is further submitted that the direction of Hon'ble Delhi High Court will be honored to consider the issue afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee."

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner's response has not been considered by the Assessing Officer while passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act both dated 23rd July, 2022, are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order under Section 148A(d) after considering the reply already filed by the Petitioner.

8. In the event the Assessing Officer has some further information/material available with him/her qua the allegations already made against the Petitioner, the same shall be shared with the Petitioner within two weeks. Needless to state that the Petitioner shall cooperate with the Assessing Officer who in turn is directed to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within eight weeks in accordance with law.

9. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition along with the pending application stands disposed of. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J NOVEMBER 10, 2022/msh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:11.11.2022 18:37:02