ASHA MAHESHWARI, WIFE OF RAMESH CHANDRA MAHESHWARI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CW/13948/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple petitioners challenging the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Department. The notices were based on materials unearthed during a search at the premises of a builder, with whom the petitioners had transactions. The petitioners argued that the materials, particularly the contents of a sale deed, did not support a prima facie case of income escapement. The court, however, found that the relevance of the material was not in dispute and that the sufficiency of the material could be addressed during the reassessment proceedings, not at the stage of the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 766091 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP PATHAK; ANUROOP SINGHI; N S BHATI; ADITYA KHANDELWAL; SHANTANU SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDHARTH RANKA; ROHAN CHATTER; SATWIKA JHA
• Keywords: Escapement of income; Income Tax; Notice; Reassessment; Section 148
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"[2024:RJ-JP:44019-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR 1. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13948/2024 Asha Maheshwari, Wife Of Ramesh Chandra Maheshwari, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of A-121, Eden Garden, Raja Vas, Nangal Poroti, Sikar Road, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 (2), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur ----Respondent 2. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14155/2024 Varenya Rameshchandra Maheshwari, D/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Maheshwari, Aged about 40 years, resident of B201, Rajrudram society, near Ryan International School, Gokuldham, goregaon east, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400063 currently residing at A-121, Eden Garden, Raja vas, Nangal Poroti, Sikar road, Jaipur 302032 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kota having its address at Dainik Navjyoti, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota 324009 ----Respondent 3. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13949/2024 Ramesh Chandra Maheshwari Son Of Shri Laxmi Chand Maheshwari, Aged About 74 Years, Resident Of A-121, Eden Garden, Raja Vas, Nangal Poroti, Sikar Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income -Tax, Circle 1, Alwar Having Its Address At Central Revenue Building, Moti Doongri Road, Alwar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Rohan Chatter & Ms. Satwika Jha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. N.S. Bhati & Mr. Aditya Khandelwal Mr. Shantanu Sharma [2024:RJ-JP:44019-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-13948/2024] HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 21/10/2024 1. On advance copy, Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Mr. Anuroop Singhi and Mr. Shantanu Sharma, learned counsel appears for the respective respondents in all these matters. 2. These petitions have been filed to assail the correctness and validity of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’) on the ground that the material which is alleged to have been found during search carried out, in the premises of the other person, is not sufficient to invoke power under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 towards reassessment because the contents of the sale deed which is said to be the basis of re-opening, do not support even prima facie case that there has been escapement of any income. 3. We have gone through the order and the material placed on record. 4. The Assessing Officer has invoked power under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 presumably on the basis of certain material which have been disclosed/unearthed during search carried out in the premises of another person/the builder with whom the present assessee had entered into transaction of purchase of flat. At this stage, the reopening is mainly on the basis that as per the disclosure made by the builder, the rate of the property which was subject matter of the sale transaction was higher. Though this is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and he submits that the genunity of the sale [2024:RJ-JP:44019-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-13948/2024] transaction on such evaluation of rate could not be made a basis, we are of the view that this is not a matter pertaining to jurisdiction but more in the nature of assessment of material on record. Relevancy of material being not in dispute, sufficiency of material may not be gone into by Writ Court at this stage when there is no addition but only reopening of assessment on disclosure of certain material. 5. We leave the assessee to raise all the grounds which may be available to him under the law at the stage of reassessment proceedings to satisfy the authority that it is not a case for addition. 6. With the said liberty, these writ petitions are dismissed. 7. Copy of this order be placed in each connected file. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N.Gandhi/Tanisha/1,11 & 751 "