DILIP KUMAR AGARWAL V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

WPO/1159/2021

AI Insights

In this case, Dilip Kumar Agarwal challenged the order dated 20th March 2020 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which upheld an assessment order demanding Rs.8,35,95,846. The assessment was based on undisclosed deposits in Agarwal's bank accounts, which were not declared in his original tax return but were later disclosed in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court reviewed the detailed reasons provided by the Principal Commissioner in the order under Section 264, noting that Agarwal had not substantiated his claims or provided necessary documents to explain the sources of the deposits. The court emphasized that it should not act as an appellate authority in this constitutional writ jurisdiction and found no merit in Agarwal's petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 681456 (HC-CALCUTTA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: TILAK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: RANO JAIN; VENKETESH CHAURASIA; SIDDHARTHA DAS; SWAPNA DAS
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Bank deposits; Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction; Income Tax; Revision application
• Section: 148; 264; 44AA

Judgement Text

"ORDER SHEET OD-4 WPO No.1159 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE DILIP KUMAR AGARWAL Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLAKTA-11 & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 6th December, 2021. APPEARANCE: Mr. Rano Jain, Adv. Mr. Venketesh Chaurasia, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. For petitioner. Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …for respondents. The Court: Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this matter, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 20th March, 2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 who has passed a detailed and reasoned order and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner, as appears from the writ petition as annexure-P-1. The petitioner had filed the revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act against the assessment order dated 21st December, 2018 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 raising a demand of Rs.8,35,95,846/- which was an appealable order but the petitioner had chosen to file revision under Section 264 of the Act. I find from the impugned order under Section 264 of the Act that the aforesaid assessment order and demand in the assessment order has been upheld 2 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax by recording the facts in detail in its order and concluding part of the said order is recorded hereunder: “As discussed above, the assessee did not declare the deposits in his bank accounts in the original return filed on 12/03/2012 but he declared Rs.13,40,74,834/- in the return of income filed on 20/04/2018 in response to the notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act. Further, he has admitted during the proceedings u/s 264 that the figure of Rs.13,65,620/- declared in his return of income is imaginary and not real. But there is no mention of the said amount of Rs.13,40,74,834/- in his submission dated 03/03/2020. The examination of documents available on record and the assessee's submission dated 03/03/2020 shows that the total deposits in his different bank accounts during the year comes to Rs.8,44,98,093/-. There are no supporting evidences on record regarding the figures of Rs.13,65,620/- and Rs.13,40,74,834/- shown by the assessee in his two returns of income. This being the case, only the bank deposits appear to be his income for the year under consideration. As such, it is to be taken that he has concealed the deposits in three bank accounts. As per the original return of income for the year under consideration, the assessee is maintaining his books of accounts on mercantile basis (please see 1 of Part A - 01 of the return of Income). In his original return of income filed on 12/03/2012, the assessee has written in the relevant column of return of Income that he is liable to maintain his accounts as per section 44AA of the I. T. Act whereas he has submitted during the proceedings u/s 264 that he is not maintaining the books of account as stated in Para B(j) of page 3 of the assessee's submission dated 03/03/2020. The assessee is also not producing any bank statements except the copies provided the A. O. to him during the assessment proceedings. He has claimed that the said bank accounts are closed, and he has no documents relating to these three bank accounts. Further, he has submitted that he is not in position to obtain the said bank account statements as they are now old. The A. O. had also tried to obtain the bank account statements, but he did not pursue the matter as indicated in his assessment order. But the facts remain that the above mentioned deposits in his bank accounts are not in 3 dispute. It appears that the assessee is deliberately not furnishing the details of the so-called buyers, suppliers and supporting documents thereof. The onus is on the assessee to provide the relevant documents to the I. T. Authorities and to substantiate his various claims, the figures declared in his returns of income, and to explain the sources of income including bank deposits. The assessee has not explained the sources of various deposits in his three bank accounts. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessment made by the AO appears to be in order. Therefore, I hereby decline to interfere with the said assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer.” In view of the detailed reasons recorded in impugned order confirming the order of assessment and demand, this Court, sitting in constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not substitute its own finding with the finding of the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Act by acting as an appellate authority over the same, more so, when the impugned order of the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Act is a speaking order and after giving an opportunity of hearing and it is not a case of violation of principles of natural justice or the case of inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the authority who has passed such order it will not be proper on the part of Writ Court to interfere in such type of cases. In view of the discussion made above, this writ petition being WPO/1159/2021 is dismissed. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) sb/ "