GOPAL SON OF SHRI NATHMAL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CW/7808/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Gopal, the petitioner, challenging the order dated 29.03.2022 by the Income Tax Officer, Sikar, under Section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the total transactions of deposits and withdrawals did not exceed Rs. 50 lacs, and thus, reopening of the case under Section 148 was barred. The court found that the transactions were unexplained and required factual inquiry, which was within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority. The court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to present his case in further proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 748341 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMIT MALANI
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDHARTH RANKA
• Keywords: Income Tax; Procedural Error; Reopening of case; Factual inquiry
• Section: 148; 149; 148-A

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7808/2022 Gopal Son Of Shri Nathmal, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 12, Tehsil Sikar, Sikar 332001. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Sikar Having Its Address At Todi Nagar, Sanwali Road, Sikar 332001. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Malani, Advocate for Mr. Nikhil Simlote, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Judgment 15/07/2022 Heard. Assailing correctness and validity of the order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the Assessing Authority in exercise of powers under Clause (d) of Section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, learned counsel for the petitioner would fervently urge before this Court to accept the version of the petitioner as submitted before the authority in the aforesaid proceedings that if various transactions of deposits, withdrawals are taken together, it would not exceed Rs.50 lacs and therefore, reopening of the case and initiation of the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 itself would be barred. (2 of 3) [CW-7808/2022] From the notice, reply submitted by the petitioner and the impugned order which has been passed by the Assessing Authority, we find that the operative reason for the authority to proceed to issue notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is that there were various transactions and taking into consideration that the assessee had not filed return in the concerned assessment year relating to the financial year in which the transactions took place, it has opined that its a case of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute raised is with regard to the nature of transactions, which essentially would be the matter for inquiry by the Assessing Authority in further proceedings. Whether the transactions of redeposit are out of those which were already in the hands of the assessee or any other transactions, essentially is a matter of factual inquiry. The transactions by the assessee prima facie have been found to be unexplained, therefore, it will be for the petitioner to explain these transactions by leading appropriate evidence before the authority in proceeding under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and to satisfy that those transactions, even if taken together, do not exceed the upper limit of Rs.50 lacs, so as to remove the impediment under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, once we are satisfied that the order does not suffer from any procedural error in the sense that the order has been passed after giving an opportunity of hearing (3 of 3) [CW-7808/2022] and consideration of reply, adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons assigned by the authority would be beyond the scope and ambit of interference except in the case of perversity. The matter would require inquiry on factual aspect, therefore, we refrain ourselves from commenting further in the matter except that at this stage no interference is warranted against the impugned order. With the liberty to the writ petitioner to raise all the grounds as raised in this case and any other grounds which are available to him to explain various transactions in further proceedings, we are inclined to dismissed the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Mohita /5 "