SHOBHA PRASAD V. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DHANBAD

WPC/751/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the incorrect assessment of income and the subsequent legal proceedings against Shobha Prasad, who was erroneously linked to a property transaction involving a different individual with a similar name and PAN. The Income Tax Department had assessed her income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 based on this misidentification, leading to an arbitrary addition of Rs. 41,00,700 to her income. The petitioner contested the assessment and the subsequent rejection of her revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was deemed not maintainable. The court found that the procedures followed by the Income Tax authorities were arbitrary and not supported by law, leading to the setting aside of the assessment order and the revision petition rejection.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 677060 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KUMAR VAIBHAV; ANURAG VIJAY
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMEET GADODIA; SHILPI GADODIA; RANJEET KUSHWAHA
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income tax assessment; Intelligence & Criminal Investigation; Permanent Account Number; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 271(1)(c); 274; 264; 151; 144B

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P. (T) No. 751 of 2024 Shobha Prasad, aged about 55 years, wife of Shri Sheo Chandra Prasad, resident of Shaurya Niwas, Saraswati Duplex 16, Surya Highland City, Near Hi Tech Petrol Pump, Naraynapur, P.O. & P.S. Karmatand, District Dhanbad, PIN-828201, Jharkhand ... ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad, having its office at Aaykar Bhawan, Luby Circular Road, Town Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad-826001, Jharkhand 2. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, having its office at Mayur Bhawan, Cannaught Lane, Barakhambha, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S. New Delhi, PIN-110001. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Dhanbad having its office at Aaykar Bhawan, Luby Circular Road, Town Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad-826001, Jharkhand. 4. Assistant Director of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Ranchi, having its office at Central Revenue Building, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi, PIN 834001 (Jharkhand). 5. Income Tax Officer, (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Ranchi, having its office at Central Revenue Building, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi, PIN 834001 (Jharkhand). 6. Shobha Prasad, aged about 60 years, Daughter of Bhagwat Sah, resident of A-91, SAIL Satellite Township, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand. ... ... ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Sr. S.C. Mr. Anurag Vijay, Jr. S.C. 2 W.P. (T) No. 751 of 2024 Order No. 04 /Dated: 13th May 2024 The petitioner aged about 55 years was constrained to come to this Court with the following prayers: “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside order dated 27.01.2024 passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Respondent No. 1 [Annexure-25], wherein Revision Petition of the Petitioner filed against Assessment Order dated 22.03.2022 [Annexure-12] passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to the Financial Year 2015-16 corresponding to Assessment Year 2016-17 has been dismissed as not maintainable. (ii) For issuance of further writ/order/direction including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the Assessment Order dated 22.03.2022 [Annexure-12] passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Respondent No. 2, wherein alleged total income of Rs. 41,00,700/- has been added to income of Petitioner in the Assessment Year 2016-17 in a most illegal and arbitrary manner, especially because the Petitioner had not purchased any immovable property amounting to Rs. 41,00,700/- during the aforesaid Assessment Year, despite thereof the said value has been included in the total income of the Petitioner merely because Petitioner and the Respondent No. 6 bear same Permanent Account Number. (iii) For issuance of further writ/order/direction, directing Income Tax Department to take suitable steps for correction of Permanent Account Number of either Petitioner or Respondent No. 6 in accordance with ITBA PAN Instruction No. 9 dated 25.03.2021 [Annexure-20] issued by Directorate of Income Tax (Systems), New Delhi which has been issued for resolution of the issue of allotment of One Permanent Account Number (hereinafter referred as PAN for short) to two or more taxpayers. (iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, this would suffice to record that the petitioner who is the wife of Shri Sheo Chandra Prasad, a resident at Saraswati Duplex 16 in Shaurya Niwas within Surya Highland City in the District of Dhanbad, does not seem to be the person who purchased the immovable property in respect thereof a notice was issued to her by the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation). However, by a notice dated 14th November 2019 she was asked to give clarifications regarding the sale deed No. 772 executed by Awadh Kishore @ Awadh Kishore Ram and others on 5th February 2016. This observation we are extracting from the order dated 27th January 2024 of the Principal 3 W.P. (T) No. 751 of 2024 Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT at Dhanbad which records the following details furnished by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer: 4 Fumish a factual report on the merit of the application. In this case, the assessment was completed on 22.03.2022 at total income of Rs. 41,00,700/-. The addition was made on account of purchase of immovable property to the tune of Rs. 41,00,700/- The assessee had filed her return for the A. Y. 2016- 17 showing total income of Rs. 2,16,000/- on 30.03.2017. As per the information received from the Insight Portal, due procedure was followed up as as provided by section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and after obtaining prior approval of the specified authority u/s 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961 notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2021. The assessee did not respond the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, a notice under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, a notice under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act 1961 was issued on 18/06/2021. Later on the case was migrated to NeFAC and NeFAC issued a notice u/s 142(1) of the 1.T. Act, 1961 on 03.12.2021 and letters on 22.12.2021, 30.12.2021, 10.01.2022. Again a notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued by NeFAC on 15.02.2022. A show cause Notice u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued by NeFAC on 01.03.2022. Ultimately the assessment was passed on 22.03.2022. In the application of the assessee for revision u/s 264, it has been stated that the asseessee did not purchase any immovable property and even though repeatedly notices have been sent to assessee's address and on the basis of information available in Insight Portal assessment has been completed. It would not be out of place to mention here that while processing the case for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 there was no provision of section 148A i.e. section 148A was not introduced at that time. As such the information was not cross verified. In fact, the assessee had approached the undersigned with a request that her PAN is either being used by someone else or the same PAN has been allotted to another one since she had not purchased any immovable property and even then notices were being issued to her. The assessee has fumished a copy of sale deed in which it has clearly been mentioned thyat Smt. Shobha Prasad, who has purchased the immovable property, resides at Ranchi whose PAN details as well as address mentioned in the sale deed is as follows:- Name :- Sobha Prasad Father's Name:- Bhagwat Shah D.O.B.-01.01.1964 Add:-A-91, SAIL, Satellite Township, P.O.:- Dhurwa, PS:- Jagarnathpur Dist :- Ranchi In this case, while uploading the data by 4 W.P. (T) No. 751 of 2024 DDIT/ADIT(I&CI), Ranchi, the following address has been mentioned. Name: Shobha Prasad Add:-C-1/38/Sector IV Township, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad The PAN details of the assessee is as follows:- Father's name :- Dhruv Narayan Prasad, D.O.B.: 29.11.1969 Add:-C-1/38/Sector IV Township, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad The AO submitted that it transpires that the assessee who has filed application u/s 264 has not purchased the immovable property, The application of the assessee u/s 264 of the I.T. Act may be considered on merit. 3. Notwithstanding that, the respondents have taken a stand to oppose this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not report compliances inasmuch as she never responded to numerous notices issued to her under sections 148, 142(1) and 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961, except a reply filed by her sometimes between 10th January to 1st of March 2022. 4. There was an order passed on 22nd March 2022 under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act by which her total income was assessed at Rs 41,00,700/- and a demand for Rs. 20,40,415/- was issued and a penalty proceeding under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was initiated against her. However, the proceeding for penalty was finally dropped against her on 29th August 2022. This is also a matter of record that the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation), Ranchi issued a clarification to the petitioner that she was never called for any enquiry as indicated hereinabove. 5. Quit apparently, the procedure adopted by the respondent authorities was arbitrary and not supported by any provision in law. An individual who was not identified by the Income Tax Department as the person who purchased the property in question cannot be directed to undergo the reassessment proceedings. Merely because the PAN Card which was appended with the sale deed carried the same name, that is, Shobha Prasad, the Department without identifying the person who moved the sale 5 W.P. (T) No. 751 of 2024 consideration could not have issued notices to the petitioner and thereby causing insurmountable harassment to her. 6. The impugned orders dated 27.01.2024 passed by respondent No. 1, the Assessment Order dated 22.03.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2 are set aside. This writ petition is allowed. Pending interlocutory application stands disposed of. 7. A fresh PAN card shall be issued to the petitioner with specific details within fifteen days. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) VK N.A.F.R. "