Indus Technical Education Society Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court)
So far as unsecured loan of Rs. 28,53,439/ is concerned, the petitioner could not submit any credible evidence alongwith its reply to establish credit worthiness of the lender i.e. M/s Arrow Netmart Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, prima facie, the Assessing Authority had some relevant material before him to assume jurisdiction for initiating re-assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act, 1961. Thus, since the Assessing Authority has some relevant material in his hands, therefore, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, 1961 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or illegal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dinesh Varun, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1-Union of India and Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:
“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act and order u/s 148A(D), both even dated 29.3.2022 and the connected proceedings for reassessment of Income for A.Y. 2018-19.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the sanction issued by respondent no.3 under Section 151 of Income Tax Act.”
In the notice under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961), the Assessing Officer has mentioned two grounds for re-opening of the case for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Firstly, unsecured loan of Rs. 28,53,439/ and, secondly, cash deposit of Rs. 1,61,000/ and Rs. 8,03,88,545/ in two bank accounts. The petitioner submitted reply. Alongwith the reply, the petitioner has submitted bank certificate of Bank of Baroda in respect of two savings bank accounts in question, which, prima facie, shows that sums of Rs. 8,03,90,545/- and Rs. 1,65,000/- were deposited by the students in cash towards fees through pre-printed fee deposit Pay-In-Slip.
Thus, prima facie, the petitioner had an explanation with respect to cash deposits in the aforesaid two savings bank accounts. However, so far as unsecured loan of Rs. 28,53,439/ is concerned, the petitioner could not submit any credible evidence alongwith its reply to establish credit worthiness of the lender i.e. M/s Arrow Netmart Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, prima facie, the Assessing Authority had some relevant material before him to assume jurisdiction for initiating re-assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act, 1961. Thus, since the Assessing Authority has some relevant material in his hands, therefore, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, 1961 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or illegal.
For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to participate in the proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.
It is clarified that any observation made in the body of this order shall not be treated as adverse to the petitioner by the Assessing Authority during the course of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act, 1961.
