Case Law Details
RK Gupta And Son HUF Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
HC held that notice dated 19.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shows, that a survey report was generated vis-à-vis Varun Capital Services Ltd. The said communication also alludes to the fact that assessee had entered into share transaction with Kisna Traders Pvt Ltd in the Financial Years(FY) 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respect of the shares referred to in the table.
As to how this transaction led the AO to conclude/form an opinion that there was escapement of income is not articulated in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.
Ruchesh Sinha, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that this was an online trading and related to a genuine transaction between the petitioner and Kisna Traders Pvt Ltd.
As adverted to above, in our opinion, the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act should have clearly brought out the allegations against the petitioner.
In these circumstances, the impugned notices, both under Section 148 and 148A(b) of the Act, as also the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, are set aside
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Allowed, subject to the petitioner filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing.
W.P.(C) 17466/2022&CM No.55738/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. Issue notice.
2.1 Mr Ajit Sharma accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. In view of the direction that we intend to pass, Mr Sharma says that a counter-affidavit need not be filed. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage itself.
4. This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 19.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “Act”]. Besides this, challenge is also laid to the order dated 27.07.2022 passed
|
Name of Beneficiary |
Date | Name of Scrip | QuantityTotal Amount | Total Amount | |
| R.K. Gupta & Sons | F.Y. 2014- 15 | 22-09- 2014 | PAGE INDUSTRIES |
75 |
563208 |
| AAQHR2404F | 563208 | ||||
| F.Y. 2015- 16 | 21-02- 2015 | BEML Ltd. |
500 |
570170 | |
| 29-12- 2015 | BEML Ltd. |
600 |
819312 | ||
| 01-01- 2016 | Canara Bank |
3000 |
709710 | ||
| 05-01- 2016 | Canara Bank |
3000 |
699360 | ||
| 29-12- 2015 | Engineers India |
3000 |
655710 | ||
| 21-12- 2015 | Fortis Healthcare |
2000 |
344500 | ||
| 21-12- 2015 | Indian Hotels |
5000 |
537400 | ||
| 04-01- 2016 | Orchid Chem |
5000 |
290820 | ||
| 04-01- 2016 | Orchid Chem |
4000 |
232280 | ||
| 01-01- 2016 | Reliance Infra |
2000 |
1012400 | ||
| 05-01- 2016 | Reliance Infra |
1500 |
814890 | ||
| 15-01- 2016 | Reliance Infra |
1000 |
527110 | ||
| 18-01- 2016 | Reliance Infra |
2500 |
1296900 | ||
| 19-01- 2016 | Reliance Infra |
1600 |
784320 | ||
| 01-01- 2016 | Union Bank of India |
5000 |
754700 | ||
| 15-01- 2016 | Union Bank of India |
1000 |
124190 | ||
| 10164772 |
2. As the jurisdiction over the case lies with you, therefore, the necessary information is being shared with you for action at your end.
7. Ajit Sharma, senior standing counsel for the respondents says that although the information supplied to the petitioner is not happily worded, what the Assessing Officer (AO) seeks to convey is that the petitioner had entered into transactions with Kisna Traders Pvt Ltd in the relevant period, through a broker going by the name Varun Capital Services Ltd., in respect of shares of companies referred to in the table extracted in departmental communication dated 15.05.2018.
8. According to us all that the communication dated 15.05.2018 shows, is that a survey report was generated vis-à-vis Varun Capital Services Ltd. The said communication also alludes to the fact that assessee had entered into share transaction with Kisna Traders Pvt Ltd in the Financial Years(FY) 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respect of the shares referred to in the table.
8.1 As to how this transaction led the AO to conclude/form an opinion that there was escapement of income is not articulated in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.
9. Ruchesh Sinha, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that this was an online trading and related to a genuine transaction between the petitioner and Kisna Traders Pvt Ltd.
10. As adverted to above, in our opinion, the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act should have clearly brought out the allegations against the petitioner.
11. In these circumstances, the impugned notices, both under Section 148 and 148A(b) of the Act, as also the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, are set aside, with liberty to the AO to issue a fresh notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, wherein the AO will clearly articulate as to how, according to him, the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
11.1 This notice will be issued within two weeks from the date of service of the order passed today and will accompany whatever material/information is available with the AO.
11.2 The AO will grant further three weeks to the petitioner to respond to the same. Thereafter, the AO will take the next steps in the matter as per law.
12. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
13. Consequently, the pending application shall stand closed.
