Atul Mahavirprasad Paldecha Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court)
Summary: The Gujarat High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the order dated 31.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequential notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2018-19.
The petitioner had originally filed his return declaring total income of Rs.1,28,74,840/-. The assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 20.04.2021 determining total income at Rs.1,82,27,809/- after making an addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B).
Subsequently, information uploaded on the Insight portal alleged escapement of income on account of transactions with M/s. Tanman Jewels Pvt. Ltd. A notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 12.08.2024 alleging bogus purchases, to which the petitioner replied on 20.08.2024. A second notice dated 24.08.2024 alleged bogus sales transactions and required a response by 28.08.2024, thereby allowing only four days.
The petitioner challenged the proceedings on the ground that Section 148A(b) mandates that the assessee be given not less than seven days to respond. The Revenue relied upon the earlier notice of 12.08.2024 and submitted that the petitioner had responded to that notice, while no response was filed to the second notice.
The High Court held that the petitioner had not been given the adequate statutory period required under Section 148A(b). The Court emphasised that the provision requires an opportunity of being heard and that the statutory minimum period could not be curtailed.
