Case Law Details
Arun Khanna Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that reopening of closed assessment which has reached culmination without any actionable material is unsustainable in law and hence liable to be quashed.
Facts- Order passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act is challenged vide the present writ petition. The principal allegation against the petitioner is that he is a beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by, one, Mr Rajnish Garg. It is alleged that the petitioner was a beneficiary of Rs.50,94,24,738/- which, according to the respondents/revenue, stood credited in the bank accounts maintained with HDFC Bank and DCB Bank in the period in issue, i.e., Financial Year (FY) 2014-15 (AY 2015-16).
Conclusion- Held that without any actionable material, the AO embarked on a journey to reopen, in a sense, a closed assessment which had reached culmination via order dated 22.03.2022, at least at the point in time when notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act was issued.
It is ordered accordingly. The impugned order dated 19.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice of even date, i.e., 19.07.2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act shall stand quashed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
