Case Law Details
Jagriti Yadav Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court recently passed an order in the case of Jagriti Yadav Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO) concerning Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner alleged that the ITO initiated reassessment proceedings based on erroneous grounds and failed to consider their responses during the process. As a result, the court decided to set aside the order and provided further directions to the AO.
In the case, the petitioner claimed that cash deposits of Rs. 78,30,015/- were wrongly unaccounted for, and the reassessment proceedings were initiated under the assumption that the petitioner was a “non-filer.” The petitioner contended that the cash deposit was duly accounted for in the return filed for AY 2016-17. Additionally, the AO had referred to a PAN that had already been surrendered.
The court observed that the petitioner had submitted responses on 10.03.2023 and 22.03.2023, which should have been considered before passing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. However, it was found that at least one of these responses was available to the AO before the order was passed.
Based on the failure to consider the petitioner’s responses, the Delhi High Court decided to set aside the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the AO under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2016-17. The AO was granted the liberty to pass a fresh order, taking into account the responses filed by the petitioner. The court further directed the AO to issue a notice for a hearing and to pass a speaking order, while clarifying that this decision would not affect the ongoing proceedings.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
