Case Law Details
Mamta Gupta Vs Addl./Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ITO National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
HC held that despite lapse of four years and a scrutiny assessment, there is fresh tangible material in the present case in the form of information of beneficiaries of bogus LTCL/STCL report prepared by the office of Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) which reveals that Mahanivesh (India) Ltd. is a penny stock whose share price was manipulated in trade by way of a complex web of pre-arranged or artificial transactions to book long term/short term capital gain/loss to the beneficiaries. It is also stated in the said report that the petitioner-assessee was involved in the trade of penny stock, inasmuch as, it had sold shares of Mahanivesh (India) Ltd. in the concerned assessment year. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the present case is not a case of change of opinion.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 31st March, 2021 issued under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) as well as the re-assessment order dated 25th March, 2022.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent No.3 wrongly assumed jurisdiction in issuing notice dated 31st March, 2021 under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14 after the expiry of four years without meeting the requirements of Sections 147/148 of the Act, in particular the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. He contends that there was no failure on the part of the Petitioner to fully and truly disclose material facts and information before the Assessing Officer during original assessment proceedings. He submits that there can be no notice under Section 147 of the Act after four years where the original assessment has been made after scrutiny, since notice in such a case is understood as one prompted by a change of opinion. In support of his submission, he relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 2 SCC 723.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
