Vipul Goel V. Income Tax Officer Ward 34 5 Delhi

W.P.(C)/13660/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Vipul Goel, the petitioner, who challenged an order and notice issued by the Income Tax Officer under sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively. The petitioner had filed his income tax return for the assessment year 2020-21, which was later subjected to reassessment based on information suggesting that his income had escaped assessment. This information was derived from data uploaded by GST authorities and other sources, indicating substantial financial transactions and property purchases. The petitioner contested the reassessment, particularly the inclusion of a property purchase valued at ₹96,00,000, asserting that he only owned a one-fourth share, funded by a loan. The AO's initial order rejected the petitioner's explanations, leading to the filing of this writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 679992 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DEBESH PANDA; VIKRAMADITYA SINGH; ZEHRA KHAN; YASHIKA GUPTA; A SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: BANKIM GARG
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Assessment year 2020-21; Certiorari; Certiorari; Income escaped assessment; Quashing order; Reopen assessment; Bogus purchase and sale
• Section: 147; 148; 148A(b); 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13660/2024 & CM No.57252/2024 VIPUL GOEL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bankim Garg, Adv. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 5 DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Ms. Zehra Khan, Ms. Yashika Gupta & Mr. A. Shankar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 14.10.2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 30.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned order), inter alia, praying as under: “(a) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 30.03.2024 (Annexure P-4) and Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2024 (Annexure P-5) by the Respondent being illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961; for assessment year 2020-21.” 2. The petitioner has filed his return of income for the assessment year (hereafter AY) 2020-21 on 10.02.2021 disclosing his total income of ₹20,81,489/-. 3. The Assessing Officer (hereafter the AO) sought to reopen the assessment on the ground that he had information to suggest that the petitioner’s income for the relevant AY (2020-21) had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) and had issued a notice dated 13.03.2024 under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 4. A plain reading of the aforesaid notice indicates that it was based on a This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/10/2024 at 12:52:36 certain information, which was uploaded on the Insight Portal by other authorities including the GST authorities. A tabular statement indicating the information which the AO found, had suggested that the petitioner’s income had escaped assessment as set out in the impugned notice, is reproduced below: “Information Code Information Description Source Amount Description Amount (Rs.) SFT Sales and purchase transaction Investigation Other 48,62,435 GSTR1-R Total sales reported under GSTR-1 GSTN Total Turnover 14,22,75,751 GSTR-3B-R Total sales reported under GSTR-3B GSTN Total Turnover 14,22,75,751 SFT-012(B) Purchase by any person of immovable property E SUB REGISTRAR VI C ROHINI Transaction amount related to the person 96,00,000 TDS – 194IA(A) TDS statement- payment of consideration for purchase of immovable property (Section 1941A) VIPUL GOEL Amount paid or credited 48,00,000 Total 30,38,13,937” 5. The aforesaid notice indicated that a search was conducted by the Investigation Wing in the case of M/s Johnson Watch Group and M/s Kapoor Watch Group on 31.10.2022 and analysis of the GST data of these companies indicated that there were entities from which accommodation entries were taken in the form of bogus purchase and sale. 6. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid notice by a letter dated 26.03.2024 setting out his explanation regarding the alleged transactions. 7. One of the allegations contained in the said notice related to the purchase of immovable property for the value of ₹96,00,000/-. The petitioner explained This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/10/2024 at 12:52:36 that there were four owners of the said property who had purchased the same jointly and the petitioner’s share in the said immovable property was only one- fourth. He submitted that he had made the payment of ₹24,00,000/- as consideration for purchase of one-fourth share in the said property by availing the loan from Kotak Mahindra Bank. 8. The AO had passed the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, prima facie, rejecting the petitioner’s explanation. The impugned order appears to be a substantial reproduction of the said notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The impugned order also sets out the tabular statement setting out various amounts (except the amount of ₹14,22,75,751/- being the turnover) as were set out in the tabular statement in the notice dated 13.03.2024. One of the rows of the said statement, which referred to the turnover of ₹14,22,75,751/- was deleted. Consequently, the total value of the income alleged to have escaped assessment was reduced to ₹16,15,38,186/-. 9. It is important to note that the amount of ₹96,00,000/-, being the value of the immovable property as reported by the Sub-Registrar-VIC Rohini, is also included in the value of the income suspected to have escaped assessment. As noted above, the assessee had explained his share in the immovable property is only one-fourth and purchase of his share is funded by a home loan from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. However, the impugned order does not indicate that the AO examined his contention. 10. It is also material to note that although the tabular statement as set out in the impugned order now reflects only four transactions with an aggregate value of ₹16,15,38,186/-, the impugned order continues to reflect that the petitioner’s income to the extent of ₹30,38,13,937/-, has escaped assessment. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/10/2024 at 12:52:36 11. In view of the above, we consider it apposite to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the AO to consider the petitioner’s response to the aforesaid notice afresh and to pass an appropriate order. 12. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications are also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J OCTOBER 14, 2024 ‘gsr’ Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/10/2024 at 12:52:36 "