Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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 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.