Case Law Details
Aten Capital Private Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Since the impugned order under Section 148A(d) has been passed on 5th April, 2022 i.e. after receipt of the detailed reply of the petitioner dated 4th April, 2022, the Assessing Officer should have considered the same as it was available on record. By not considering the reply of the petitioner dated 4th April, 2022, the mandate of Section 148A(c) has been violated as it casts a duty on the Assessing Officer, by using the expression ‘shall’ to consider the reply of the petitioner/assessee in response to the notice under Section 148A(b) before making an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act.
In fact, this Court in Fena Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Circle 7-1 & Anr., W.P.(C) 6553/2022 had quashed the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act in similar circumstances i.e. where Assessing Officer had not taken into consideration the replies along with the documents/evidences filed by the assessee before passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act.
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act both dated 5th April, 2022 are quashed and set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
