Case Law Details
Jagriti Yadav Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court recently passed an order in the case of Jagriti Yadav Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO) concerning Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner alleged that the ITO initiated reassessment proceedings based on erroneous grounds and failed to consider their responses during the process. As a result, the court decided to set aside the order and provided further directions to the AO.
In the case, the petitioner claimed that cash deposits of Rs. 78,30,015/- were wrongly unaccounted for, and the reassessment proceedings were initiated under the assumption that the petitioner was a “non-filer.” The petitioner contended that the cash deposit was duly accounted for in the return filed for AY 2016-17. Additionally, the AO had referred to a PAN that had already been surrendered.
The court observed that the petitioner had submitted responses on 10.03.2023 and 22.03.2023, which should have been considered before passing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. However, it was found that at least one of these responses was available to the AO before the order was passed.
Based on the failure to consider the petitioner’s responses, the Delhi High Court decided to set aside the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the AO under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2016-17. The AO was granted the liberty to pass a fresh order, taking into account the responses filed by the petitioner. The court further directed the AO to issue a notice for a hearing and to pass a speaking order, while clarifying that this decision would not affect the ongoing proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Issue notice.
1.1 Mr Vipul Agarwal, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.
2. In view of the directions that we intend to pass, Mr Agarwal says that no counter-affidavit is required to be filed and that he will rely on the record presently available with the court.
3. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
4. The principal allegation against the petitioner is that he made cash deposits amounting to Rs.78,30,015/-, which were not accounted for.
5. It is the petitioner’s case that the reassessment proceedings were triggered against him based on the wrong premise that the petitioner is a “non-filer”. The petitioner asserts that the aforementioned cash deposit was accounted for in the return filed for AY 2016-17.
5.1 It is also the petitioner’s case that the Assessing Officer (AO) has referred to a PAN which had already been surrendered.
6. These and other defences, on merits, according to the counsel for the petitioner, were taken in the response dated 10.03.2023, which, according to the petitioner, has not been considered while passing the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Act.
6.1 The petitioner further claims that a response dated 22.03.2023 was also filed, however, the same was received by the AO after the impugned order had been passed.
7. It is clear that, at least, one of the two replies was available with the AO before the passing of the impugned order.
8. Given this position, according to us, the best way forward would be to set aside the order dated 23.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, with liberty to the AO to pass a fresh order, after factoring in the response(s) filed by the petitioner. It is ordered accordingly.
9. The AO will issue a notice setting out the date and time for according hearing to the petitioner and/or her authorised representative.
10. Needless to add, the AO will pass a speaking order; a copy of which will be furnished to the petitioner.
11. Since we have not examined the merits of the case, the directions issued via the instant order will not impact the proceedings that the AO may carry on hereafter.
12. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending application shall stand closed.
Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order
