BHARAT AGRO OVERSEAS (INDIA) V. ACIT CIRCLE 34(1) & ANR.

W.P.(C)/17455/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Bharat Agro Overseas (India), the petitioner, challenging notices and orders issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the Assessment Year 2013-2014. The petitioner contended that the material basis for the notice under Section 148A(b) was not supplied, and also raised issues regarding the reassessment proceedings being commenced against a non-existent entity, as the partnership firm sharing the same name as the petitioner had its PAN surrendered and cancelled. The respondents, represented by Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel, did not contest the need for a counter-affidavit and agreed to the final disposal of the writ petition at the hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 746084 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PUNEET RAI; ADEEBA MUJAHID
• Assessee Lawyers: RUCHESH SINHA; SAMYAK JAIN
• Keywords: Non-existent entity; Notice; Partnership firm; Proprietorship; Reassessment; Writ petition
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: 2022/DHC/005871 W.P.(C)17455/2022 Page 1 of 3 $~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decision delivered on: 21.12.2022 + W.P.(C) 17455/2022&CM APPL. 55642-43/2022 BHARAT AGRO OVERSEAS (INDIA) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ruchesh Sinha and Mr Samyak Jain, Advs. versus ACIT CIRCLE 34(1) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): CM No.55643/2022 1. Allowed, subject to the petitioner filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing. W.P.(C) 17455/2022&CM No.55642/2022[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief] 2. Issue notice. 2.1. Mr Puneet Rai accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue. 3. In view of the direction that we intend to pass, Mr Rai says that a counter-affidavit need not be filed. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:30.12.2022 00:23:42 Signature Not Verified NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: 2022/DHC/005871 W.P.(C)17455/2022 Page 2 of 3 this stage itself. 4. Challenge in this writ petition is laid to notice dated 23.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “Act”] concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2013-2014. Besides this, the petitioner has also assailed the order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice of even date, i.e., 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 5. In the course of the hearing, what has emerged is that, perhaps, the information/material that formed the basis for issuing the impugned notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was not supplied to the petitioner. 5.1. Mr Rai says that he has obtained instructions to the effect that the Assessing Officer (AO) is not sure as to whether the material/information was supplied partially or wholly. 6. Given this position, the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act are set aside. 7. The respondents/revenue will have liberty to take the next steps in the matter, albeit, as per law. 8. At this stage, we may note that one of the grounds that the petitioner has raised in the writ petition is that the reassessment proceedings were commenced by issuing notice against a non-existent entity, i.e., the partnership firm which bears the same name as the petitioner. 8.1 It is averred that the petitioner before us is a proprietorship concern. It is also averred that the proprietor of the petitioner concern is one Mr Deepak Dogra, who, along with Mr Himanshu Taneja, formed the partnership firm going by the same name, i.e., Bharat Agro Overseas (India). Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:30.12.2022 00:23:42 Signature Not Verified NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: 2022/DHC/005871 W.P.(C)17455/2022 Page 3 of 3 8.2 The petitioner also claims that communications were addressed on 31.03.2017, whereby the surrender and cancellation of the PAN allocated to the partnership firm was sought. This request, according to the petitioner, was made once again on 27.02.2020. [See Annexure-3 appended on pages 69 and 70 of the case file]. 9. Mr Rai contests the position which is taken on behalf of the petitioner, both on facts and law. 10. Therefore, while dealing with the notice issued under Section 148A(b), these contentions, apart from other contentions that may be raised on behalf of the petitioner, will be dealt with by the AO. 11. In order to hasten the proceedings, the AO is directed to furnish the relevant information/material to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today. 11.1. Thereafter, the AO will give at least three weeks to the petitioner to respond both to the notice as well as the material furnished. 12. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending application shall stand closed. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J DECEMBER 21, 2022/aj Click here to check corrigendum, if any Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:30.12.2022 00:23:42 Signature Not Verified "