Case Law Details
Dinesh Kumar Goyal HUF Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court)
Introduction: The case of Dinesh Kumar Goyal HUF Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court) revolves around the challenge to a Section 148A(d) order for the assessment year 2017-18. The appellant contests the reopening, emphasizing the absence of tangible material indicating income escapement.
Detailed Analysis: The assessing officer initiated reopening based on cash deposits, interest receipts, and debenture purchases. The appellant, having previously succeeded in challenging a similar action for the assessment year 2016-17, now faced a notice under Section 148A(b) for 2017-18.
The notice cited credible information via the insight portal but lacked specific allegations beyond annexed details from the return of income. The appellant’s reply highlighted the absence of material indicating income escapement and clarified the source of cash deposits. Despite this, an order under Section 148A(d) was passed, prompting the appellant’s legal challenge.
The court emphasized the violation of principles of natural justice in the initial order, leading to remand and additional representation. The impugned order failed to address the glaring omission—the quashing of proceedings for the previous assessment year, making it legally untenable.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
