Sanket Vinayak Nagvekar Vs ITO (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice under Section 148A(b) dated 17 March 2022, the order under Section 148A(d) dated 31 March 2022, the notice under Section 148 dated 31 March 2022 for Assessment Year 2018-19, the assessment order dated 30 March 2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144, the consequential notice of demand under Section 156, and the notice under Section 274 read with Section 270A.
The petitioner, an individual residing and working in the United Arab Emirates, claimed the status of a non-resident under the Income-tax Act for AY 2018-19. The proceedings commenced with a notice under Section 148A(b) alleging that the petitioner had purchased immovable property worth Rs. 2,04,60,800 and had not filed a return of income. According to the petitioner, the notice did not disclose the source of information, the property details or date of purchase, and continued to use the petitioner’s old address.
The petitioner did not initially respond, stating that he was residing in the UAE, was not familiar with Indian tax procedures and had no regular tax consultant. An order under Section 148A(d) was passed on 31 March 2022, followed by a notice under Section 148. Subsequently, the case was assigned for faceless assessment under Section 144B. Notices under Section 142(1) were issued on 14 October 2022 and 5 January 2023 seeking information relating to the return, bank statements, property details and source of investment.
