BOUTIQUE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4 (2) DELHI

W.P.(C)/13616/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Boutique International Pvt Ltd, the Petitioner, challenging an order and notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Petitioner contested the allegations of involvement in bogus accommodation entries linked to entities controlled by Mr. Himanshu Verma. The Supreme Court's directions in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal influenced the proceedings. The Petitioner argued that the reassessment was based on incorrect information and that their responses were not considered in the impugned order. The Respondent provided evidence of transactions with specific companies, alleging tax evasion. The court found that the order and notice lacked specific details about the alleged transactions, leading to the decision to set aside the order and remand the case for further investigation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 749710 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ZOHEB HOSSAIN; VIPUL AGRAWAL; PARTH SEMWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KAPIL GOEL
• Keywords: Bogus accommodation entries; Digital Signature; Reassessment proceedings; Tax Evasion
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"W.P.(C) 13616/2022 Page 1 of 3 $~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13616/2022, CM APPL. 41494/2022 & CM APPL. 41495/2022 BOUTIQUE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kapil Goel, Advocate (Through VC). versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4 (2) DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vipul Agrawal and Mr. Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing Counsel. % Date of Decision: 07th October, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): CM APPL. 41495/2022 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 13616/2022, CM APPL. 41494/2022 (for stay) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act both dated 22nd July, 2022 for Assessment Year [AY] 2017-18. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004118 W.P.(C) 13616/2022 Page 2 of 3 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543, the Petitioner was issued a letter dated 26th May, 2022, under Section 148A(b) of the Act alleging that Petitioner had taken bogus accommodation entries from entities controlled by Mr. Himanshu Verma. He states that the Petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 3rd June, 2022, wherein it was stated that the information on the basis of which the reassessment proceedings were sought to be initiated were incorrect as the Petitioner had never entered into any transactions with Mr. Himanshu Verma or any entities controlled by him. He further states that the information such as the pin-code and the mobile number of the assessee did not correspond with those of the Petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner emphasises that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) was passed without taking into consideration any of the contentions raised by the Petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent/Revenues states that there is information available on the insight portal from a credible source which discloses modus operandi of tax evasion. He states that the Petitioner’s names along with his PAN is mentioned in the information relied upon against the transactions of Rs. 25 Lacs with M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt Ltd and Rs. 68 Lacs with M/s Upaj leasing and Finance Co. Pvt Ltd. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the information furnished to the Petitioner and the impugned order do not specify in which bank account or account number, the alleged amount have been received by the Petitioner. Though the impugned order states that the This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004118 W.P.(C) 13616/2022 Page 3 of 3 asset is represented by bogus accommodation entries in the form of bank deposits, yet no details of any such deposit have been mentioned in the impugned order. 6. Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act as well as the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act both dated 22nd July, 2022, for AY 2017-18 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination. In the interest of justice, this Court permits the Assessing Officer to supply additional information, if any, in his possession to the Petitioner-Assessee within four weeks. The Petitioner-Assessee shall be at liberty to file an additional response within four weeks thereafter. The Assessing Officer shall subsequently decide the matter in accordance with law within four weeks. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition along with the pending application stand disposed of. This Court clarifies that the rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 07, 2022/msh This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004118 "