Tirupati Trading Corporation Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that a mistake has been made in triggering reassessment proceedings against the petitioner as no impugned transactions have been carried out by the assessee and accordingly, re-assessment proceedings initiated u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act is set aside.
Facts- The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.07.2022 passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequent notice of even date i.e., 28.07.2022 issued u/s. 148 of the Act, concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
It is contended that reassessment proceedings have been commenced without any information and material being supplied to the petitioner.
Conclusion- Held that a mistake has been made in triggering reassessment proceedings against the petitioner as during the financial year under reference, no transactions have been carried out by the assessee with Sh. Ramesh Kumar Bagri and his name was inadvertently mentioned by the Investigation Wing in the report due to similarity in the names.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) and consequential notice of even date, i.e., 28.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 are set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. We had heard learned counsel for the parties at some length on 16.12.2022, after which we had recorded the broad contours of the matter. For convenience, the relevant parts of the order dated 16.12.2022 are set forth hereafter:
“1. The matter is taken up today once again as the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the respondent/revenue under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] was discrepant.
1.1 The discrepancy in the aforementioned order concerns the bank account number of one Mr Ramesh Kumar Bagri maintained with IDBI Bank.
2. Mr C.S. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that he has got yet another certificate titled “To Whom It May Concern” dated 15.12.2022 with respect to the other account number e., 264102000006354 indicated in the aforementioned order.
2.1 A copy of this communication has been handed over to Mr Abhishek Maratha.
2.2 The Registry will scan and upload the same so that it remains part of the case file.
3. In any event, for the moment, we are not taking into account this document till it is verified by the respondent/revenue. However, that, by itself, will not come in the way of the petitioner being granted interim relief, for the reasons set out hereinafter.
4. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] and the consequent notice of even date i.e., 28.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
5. Mr Aggarwal says that reassessment proceedings have been commenced without any information and material being supplied to the petitioner.
6. The record shows that notice, in the first instance, was issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Act on 07.04.2021. Since the new regime kicked in, a fresh notice under Section 148A(b) dated 27.05.2022 was issued to the petitioner.
7. The record shows that the allegation against the petitioner is that it has received bogus entry from an entry provider i.e., one Mr Ramesh Kumar Bagri.
8. A perusal of the order dated 28.07.2022 would show that in the suspicious transaction referred to under the heading “information available and action initiated”, concerning Mr Bagri, there is no reference to the petitioner.
9. Mr Abhishek Maratha, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, has placed before us the information received by the assessing officer i.e., Mr Sanjeev Bimbisariye. The following information was furnished to us by way of a tabular chart:
