Case Law Details
Jain Cooperative Bank Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
As per the notice issued under Section 148A(b) the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of suspicious transactions flagged by the FIU [Financial Intelligence Unit]. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner is registered as a non-scheduled Urban Cooperative bank who ‘maintained current accounts with Chandni Chowk, Shakarpur and Karkardooma Branches, New Delhi a/c no. 523011066574, 523011066582, 634011031880, 683011012827, 683011012860 had deposited huge cash amounting to Rs.141.28 crores during the period from 01st April, 2016 to 31st December, 2016’. From the Search Assessment order under Section 153A dated 29th December, 2018, it is not clear whether these deposits were verified by the Assessing Officer or not. In fact, the Assessment Order passed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) dated 29th December, 2018 is an order passed pursuant to the search, wherein it seems only the documents seized during the search were considered. The said order does not reveal that the aspect of cash deposits was specifically examined by the Assessing Officer.
Further, as far as non-consideration of petitioner’s reply is considered, it is settled law that ‘principle of natural justice is no unruly horse and no lurking land mine’ as held by Mr.Justice Krishna Iyer in Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines Vs. Ramjee, (1997) 2 SCC 256. In fact, in M/s S.Tikara Vs. State of M.P. & Ors, AIR 1997 SC 1691, it has been held that the principles of natural justice cannot be petrified or fitted into rigid moulds. They are flexible and turn on the facts and circumstances of each case. Consequently, the questions that arise are whether there has been any unfair deal by the respondent?
In the present instance, in view of the allegation of cash deposits of 141.28 crores during demonetization period, this Court is of the opinion that even if the reply now sought to be relied upon by the petitioner was taken into account, notice under Section 148 of the Act was called for – as a prima facie case of escapement of income was made out. Consequently, no ground for interdicting the reassessment is made out at this stage.
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.
