KATIYAR COLD STORAGE PRIVATE LIMITED V. UNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/202/2022

AI Insights

Katiyar Cold Storage Private Limited filed a writ petition against the Union of India and others, challenging the jurisdictional notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute arose from a reported cash deposit of Rs. 12,50,14,500, which was later clarified to be Rs. 2,06,58,500 due to a clerical error in the bank's reporting. The court examined the submissions and counter-affidavits from both parties, including the detailed financial transactions and the clerical error acknowledged by the bank. The court concluded that the assessing authority had a valid basis for issuing the notice, as the corrected amount was still significant and warranted further investigation under the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 723525 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Uphill Farms Private Limited Vs. Union Of India and Another
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A S G I; DINESH VARUN; GAURAV MAHAJAN; MANU GHILDYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHINAV MEHROTRA; SATYA VRATA MEHROTRA
• Keywords: Cash deposit; Income Tax; Jurisdictional notice; Reassessment order
• Section: 148; 246A

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 202 of 2022 Petitioner :- Katiyar Cold Storage Private Limited Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Mehrotra,Satya Vrata Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Varun,Gaurav Mahajan,Manu Ghildyal Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. Heard Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Dinesh Varun, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned counsel for the Income Tax Department. This writ petition was heard at length on 23.03.2022, 04.04.2022 18.04.2022 and 05.05.2022. On 05.05.2022, this Court passed following order:- \"Heard Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondent no.1 and Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4, dated 04.05.2022 has been filed today by Sri Manu Ghildyal, which is taken on record. Counter affidavit by respondent no.1 has not been filed despite our order dated 18.04.2022. As per counter affidavit the information in possession of the Assessing Authority was of cash deposit as uploaded by the bank in Form 61 A. There was some error inasmuch as the cash deposit was of Rs.2,06,58,500/- which was uploaded six times and thus the total amount resulted in an amount of Rs.12,39,51,000/-. That apart, there was another information in possession of Assessing Authority regarding cash deposit of Rs.10,63,500/-. Thus, the total amount of deposit shown of Rs.12,50,14,500/-. However, the aforesaid information of cash deposit in Union Bank of India of Rs.12,39,51,000/- was infact the information of cash deposit of Rs.2,06,58,500/-. Thus, prima facie it appears that the assessing authority has recorded reasons to believe based on relevant materiel in his possession indicating escapement of income from Tax. Thus, in view of the law summarised by this Court on the point of issuance of jurisdictional notice and assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, in Writ Tax No.518 of 2022 (Uphill Farms Private Limited Vs. Union Of India and Another) decided on 25.04.2022, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 prima facie can not be said to be without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three days' time to file rejoinder affidavit. Put up as a fresh case before the appropriate Bench on 09.05.2022.\" Rejoinder affidavit dated 09.05.2022 has been filed today, which is taken on record. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and we find that assessing authority has information about cash deposit of Rs. 02,06,58,500/- which was not irrelevant or unfounded. Thus, the impugned jurisdictional notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. For the reasons aforestated, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned reassessment order dated 29.03.2022 in Appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if so advised. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order, then it shall be entertained by the appellate authority without raising any objection as to limitation. Order Date :- 9.5.2022 T.S. Digitally signed by TRIBHUWAN SINGH Date: 2022.05.10 13:25:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad "