Ramchandra Choudhary V. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur

CW/18229/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Ramchandra Choudhary, the petitioner, who challenged the legality of the proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were illegal, arbitrary, and violated principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, including those related to the proper jurisdiction and procedure for reopening assessments. The court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner had not adequately challenged the initial notices and orders and had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808096 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Rajhans Processors Union of India & Others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16985/2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANUROOP SINGHI
• Assessee Lawyers: APEKSHA BAPNA
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Re-assessment; Violation of statutory provisions
• Section: 148; 154; 282; 144B; 148A(b); 148A(d); 151A

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18229/2023 Ramchandra Choudhary Son Of Shri Bhura Ram Choudhary, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Near Petrol Pump, Bhankrota, Ajmer Road, Jaipur 302026 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur Having Its Address At Sidhnath Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar Scheme, Lal Kothi Scheme, Behind New Vidhansabha, Janpath, Jaipur 302015 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Apeksha Bapna Advocate on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Ranka Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi Advocate with Mr. N.S. Bhati Advocate. Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 22/11/2023 1. Heard on admission. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that initiation of proceedings under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), order dated 30.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 as also notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 issued on 30.03.2023, re-opening assessment in relation to assessment year 2016-17 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice as also against statutory provisions contained in Section 282 of the Act of 1961 read with Rule 127 of the Income Tax (2 of 5) [CW-18229/2023] Rules, 1962. It is submitted that Notification No.04/2017 dated 03.04.2017 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes has also been violated. When the petitioner received notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 on his registered main address, he came to know about the proceedings initiated under Section 148A and order passed thereunder. The petitioner submitted a detailed application for rectification of mistake under Section 154 of the Act of 1961. In the application, it was highlighted that proper enquiry has not been conducted. It was also stated therein that petitioner had purchased an immovable property for a total sale consideration of Rs.42,27,554/- and copy of sale deed was also annexed. But there was no due consideration of the application and vide order dated 06.09.2023 that application has also been rejected. The proceedings could not have been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer but only by the Assessing Officer as per Notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Therefore, it is in violation of provisions contained in Section 151A of the Act of 1961. It is also the submission that as per the Notification dated 29.03.2022, the Assessment Unit was required to assign the same to NFAC and the impugned Notice under Section 148 could not have been issued by the respondent- authority and for that reason, the notices are in violation of provisions contained in Section 144B of the Act of 1961. No reason has been assigned as to why no enquiry proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer under Section 148A(a) of the Act of 1961 prior to issuance of Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961. (3 of 5) [CW-18229/2023] 3. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. A notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961 was issued to the petitioner on 21.03.2023 on the basis of information which suggested that income chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2016-17 has escaped assessment. This was based on an information with regard to transaction of purchases of a residential immovable property of the value of Rs.84,55,108/-. The assessee while filing his return of income on 05.08.2016 had declared total income of Rs.3,36, 670/-. A perusal of order dated 30.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 shows that it was recorded therein that even though assessee was required to furnish reply on or before 28.03.2023, but no reply has been furnished. This followed issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 on 30.03.2023. However, the petitioner did not challenge issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961, nor did challenge the order dated 30.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961, nor did challenge notice under Section 148 issued on 30.03.2023. Even according to the petitioner, notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was received by him. If the petitioner had any such grievance that the notice and order passed earlier have not been served, it could have challenged the same. As late as on 08.06.2023, the petitioner filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 wherein, he states that show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961 was issued on 21.03.2023. In that application, there is no whisper that either notice dated 21.03.2023 or subsequent order passed under Section 148A(d) on (4 of 5) [CW-18229/2023] 30.03.2023, was not served on him. All that has been stated is that proper enquiry has not been conducted with respect to the information. Petitioner sought to justify that his investment towards purchase was only 50%, i.e., Rs.42,27,554/-. It is, thus, clear that the ground raised in this petition that the petitioner was not served with notice dated 21.03.2023 under Section 148A(b) and subsequent order dated 30.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) is an afterthought. The rectification application was rejected vide order dated 06.09.2023. It has been stated in that order that even though assessee was provided sufficient time, he did not avail the same. He did not file any explanation/documentary evidence with regard to the information communicated to him which led to passing of an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 after due approval of the Competent Authority. It has also been stated therein that the case of the assessee is pending before the Faceless Assessment Unit with NaFAC to finalize the assessment in the faceless manner after necessary enquiries. It is not the case of the petitioner that the income invested in purchasing immovable property was disclosed while filing return of income. Even according to the petitioner, Rs.42,27,554/- was paid. The petitioner filed income tax return for the concerned assessment year declaring his total income only Rs.3,36, 670/-. 5. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, at Jodhpur in the case of Rajhans Processors Union of India & Others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16985/2021, decided on 08.02.2023, does not come to the aid of the petitioner as in the present case, the facts are different. In the said case, (5 of 5) [CW-18229/2023] there was an admission on the part of the authority that in its order, there is no material on record on the basis of which, the A.O. would form a bonafide belief that income of the assessee has escaped assessment for the concerned Assessment Year. In the present case, facts are different. 6. In view of the above consideration, no case is made out for issuance of notice. 7. Therefore, the petition is dismissed in limine. 8. It is, however, made clear that it will be open for the petitioner to raise all the grounds available to him under the law in the re- assessment proceedings against any addition proposed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT-52 "