Case Law Details
Catchy Prop-Build Private Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Having perused the paper book and having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the petitioner was never asked to explain the source of funds that were used by Manu Garments to purchase the shares of Bert Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
This Court is further of the opinion that if the foundational allegation is missing in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the same cannot be incorporated by issuing a supplementary notice.
In the case of Mahashian Di Hatti Pvt. Limited (supra), there was a specific allegation that the assessee-company had taken accommodation entries of Rs.1,90,84,654/- from twenty eight bogus entities maintained by one Sh.Deepak Nanjyani. Since the foundational allegation was present in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, this Court in the said case permitted the Assessing Officer to supply the names of twenty eight bogus entities as well as the bank details of one Raj Trading Company. Consequently, the present case is clearly distinguishable from the case of Mahashian Di Hatti Pvt. Limited (supra).
Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present writ petition along with applications is allowed and the show cause notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act as well as the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19 are quashed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
