IBRAHIM KHAN S/O SHRI HAJI RASOOL KHAN V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1

CW/23552/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Ibrahim Khan, the petitioner, who contested a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Income Tax Officers of Sikar and Jaipur. The notice was related to the alleged non-disclosure of capital gains from the sale of immovable property during the Assessment Year 2011-12. The petitioner argued that he had indeed filed the Income Tax Return for the said year, disclosing the capital gains, which was acknowledged by the respondents but contested the attachment of the computation. The court found that the Income Tax Officer's rejection of the objections was not sustainable as it did not consider the sale consideration declared in the ITR.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747800 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer And Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP PATHAK
• Assessee Lawyers: GUNJAN PATHAK; KANISHK SINGHAL; ADITYA BOHRA
• Keywords: Capital Gain; Immovable Property; Income Tax Return; Quashing of notice; Reopening of assessment
• Section: 148; 142

Judgement Text

"[2024:RJ-JP:19004-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23552/2018 Ibrahim Khan S/o Shri Haji Rasool Khan, Aged About 73 Years, Kasali, Vpo, Kasali, Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Office, Sikar. 2. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Jaipur, Room No. 221, 2Nd Floor, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Gunjan Pathak with Mr.Kanishk Singhal & Mr.Aditya Bohra For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 23/04/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):- 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of notice dated 27.03.2018 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and order dated 04.10.2018 rejecting the objections filed against initiation of the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner during the Assessment Year (for brevity AY) 2011-12 sold an immovable property. As per the department, the petitioner had not filed the Income Tax Return disclosing the capital gain. 3. A notice dated 27.03.2018 was issued under Section 148 of the Act, service of which is disputed. On receipt of notice under Section 142 of the Act, in pursuance to the decision of the [2024:RJ-JP:19004-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-23552/2018] Supreme Court in Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer And Ors. reported in 259 ITR Page 19, the reasons sought by petitioner for reopening were supplied. 4. The petitioner objections dated 25.09.2018 filed by petitioner were acknowledged by the department. One of the objections raised was that under Section 148 of the Act proceedings have been initiated without application of mind. It was not considered that the petitioner on 30.03.2012 had filed Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2011-12 and in the computation attached thereto, the capital gain on sale of the immovable property was duly reflected. 6. The objections were rejected on 04.10.2018. Para 3.5 of the order is quoted below:- ‘(3.5)-AO has not considered the sale consideration declared by the assessee in his ITR, hence, proceeding is void and required to be dropped. In the reasons, it is clearly mentioned that the assessee has not filed his ITR as such verification of sale consideration disclosed by the assessee was not possible at that time, however, the same may be considered during assessment proceedings.’ 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 8. In Para 2 of the writ petition, the petitioned pleaded that the Income Tax Return along-with the computation of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 was filed. In the reply filed, the respondents have admitted filing of the return but has contested that the computation was not attached. 9. In view of the reply filed, the findings recorded in Para 3.5 by the Income Tax Officer cannot be sustained. Consequently, the [2024:RJ-JP:19004-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-23552/2018] impugned order dated 04.10.2018 is set aside and the matter is remitted back for deciding the objections afresh. 10. It is clarified that while deciding the objections, the officer concerned shall not be influenced by the observations made in the impugned order and shall decide it in accordance with law. 11. In order to avoid any further delay, let the petitioner through representative appear in the office of respondent No.1 on 03.05.2024 at 11:00 AM. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/Sudeepak/45 Reportable Yes "