PRAVEEN BANSAL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29-1 & ANR.

W.P.(C)/6054/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Praveen Bansal, the petitioner, who challenged the order and notice issued under Sections 148A(d) and 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively, for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The petitioner contested the transactions listed in the notice, particularly denying any transaction with Dayanand Singh, which if excluded, would result in the alleged escaped income being below Rs. 50 lakhs. The court noted that the petitioner did not respond to the initial notice but later filed a reply after the impugned order was passed. The court decided to allow the petitioner a chance to present his case before the Assessing Officer before any final assessment order is made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 749265 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV GUPTA; SHIVENDRA SINGH; PUNEET SINGHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANANYA KAPOOR
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2014-15; Income Tax; Interim relief; Notice; Personal hearing; Writ petition
• Section: 148A(b); 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"2023:DHC:3523-DB W.P.(C)No.6054/2023 Page 1 of 3 $~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 10.05.2023 + W.P.(C) 6054/2023 PRAVEEN BANSAL ..... Petitioner Through: Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29-1 & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Shivendra Singh and Mr Puneet Singhal, Jr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL) CM APPL. 23696/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 6054/2023 and CM APPL. 23695/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief] 2. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 3. The petitioner/assessee has assailed via the instant writ petition, the order dated 20.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”]. 3.1 Besides this, challenge is also laid to the notice dated 29.05.2022 Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:22.05.2023 11:25:13 Signature Not Verified 2023:DHC:3523-DB W.P.(C)No.6054/2023 Page 2 of 3 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 3.2 In addition thereto, there is also a challenge laid to Instruction No.1 of 2022 dated 11.05.2022, issued by the CBDT. 4. Ms Ananya Kapoor, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of petitioner/assessee, fairly concedes that no response was submitted by the petitioner/assessee to the aforementioned notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 4.1 Ms Kapoor’s contention is that a reply was filed on 30.04.2023. In this context, Ms Kapoor draws our attention to Annexure P-16 appended on page 117 of the case file. 4.2 It is Ms Kapoor’s contention that the Case Related Information Detail (CRID) furnished along with notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, refers to the following transactions: Dayanand Singh Rs.33,81,000/- Lifeline Securities Ltd. Rs.35,51,459/- I. Venture Capital Pvt. Ltd. Rs.3,20,000/- 4.3 Ms Kapoor says that a perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner/assessee, albeit after the impugned order was passed under Section 148A(d), would show that the petitioner/assessee has taken the stand that he did not enter into any transaction with Dayanand Singh, as alleged by the respondent/revenue, or at all. Ms Kapoor submits that if the amount alleged to have been transacted with Dayanand Singh, i.e., Rs. 33,81,000/- is taken out of the equation, the alleged escaped income would be below Rs.50 lakhs. 5. Unfortunately for the petitioner/assessee, this stand was not taken in Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:22.05.2023 11:25:13 Signature Not Verified 2023:DHC:3523-DB W.P.(C)No.6054/2023 Page 3 of 3 time. 6. Given this position, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction that before the Assessing Officer proceeds to pass an assessment order, he would verify the assertion made by the petitioner/assessee which is recorded in the reply, and in this context, also accord personal hearing to the petitioner/assessee and/or his authorised representative. 7. Consequently, pending application shall also stand closed. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J GIRISH KATHPALIA, J MAY 10, 2023 / tr Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:22.05.2023 11:25:13 Signature Not Verified "