Bombay High Court
Ms Vija Y Steel Traders vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 4 March, 2024
Author: K.R.Shriram
Bench: K. R. Shriram, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-AS:10648-DB
1/5 508-aswp-15619-2023-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15619 OF 2023
M/s. Vijay Steel Traders,
A firm having its address at: S. No. 13/2/1,
Opposite Bharat Petrol Pump, Urali Devanchi,
Taluka Haveli, Pune 412 308.PAN: AAJFV6387J. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 7, Pune,
Room No.316, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Sadan,
Bodhi Towers, Salisbury Park, Gultekdi,
Pune 411 037, Email:
[email protected].
2. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax
Officer,
National Faceless Assessment Centre,
Through the Principal Chief Commissioner
of Income Tax (National Faceless
Assessment Centre), Delhi Room No.401,
2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru
Stadium, New Delhi 110 003, Email:
[email protected]
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle 2(3), Pune,
Aayakar Sadan, Bodhi Towers, Salisbury
Park, Gultekdi, Pune 411 037, Email:
[email protected]
4. The Union of India,
Through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Fiannce, Room No.128-B, North Block, New
Delhi 110 001, Emails: [email protected] and
[email protected] ...Respondents
Mr. Rohan Deshpande, i/b. Mr. Smit Shah, for Petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Respondents-Revenue.
Gaikwad RD
2/5 508-aswp-15619-2023-J.doc
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATED : 4th March 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per K.R.Shriram, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for
final hearing.
2. Petitioner had filed its return of income on 30 th October 2019
for Assessment Year 2019-20 declaring total income of
Rs.2,10,99,470/-. Petitioner's return came to be processed under
Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").
3. Petitioner was served with a notice dated 4 th March 2023 under
Section 148A(b) of the Act alleging that there was information
suggesting income chargeable to tax for AY 2019-20 has escaped
assessment. The information was enclosed with the notice. It was
alleged that a sum of Rs.3,64,97,625/- could have escaped
assessment.
4. Thereafter, Petitioner received a notice dated 15 th March 2023
again under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The details of information
was annexed with the notice in which it was admitted by
Respondents that the earlier notice dated 4 th March 2023 was sent
containing incorrect information and, therefore, should be treated as
invalid. This new notice contained brief details of information
collected/received by the Assessing Officer ("AO"). The information
Gaikwad RD
3/5 508-aswp-15619-2023-J.doc
was Petitioner was a beneficary of accommodation entries amounting
to Rs.27,50,000/- from one M/s. Kusum Multitrade Pvt. Ltd.
("KMPL"). Petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the
income arising out of above transactions should not be treated as
income which has escaped assessment in the hands of Petitioner and
consequentially, why a notice under Section 148 of the Act should not
be issued. Petitioner was called upon to show cause with supporting
evidence. It was also stated that prima facie Petitioner has not
considered the financial transactions with KMPL wherein there is
strong possibility of tax implications. Petitioner replied vide its letter
dated 20th March 2023 and gave details of three transactions entered
into with KMPL. Petitioner also annexed copies of tax invoices and E-
way bills.
5. The reply by Petitioner was rejected by an order dated 31 st
March 2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act on the ground
that Petitioner failed to submit E-way bills, weigh bridge slips, deliver
challans, lorry receipts, toll booth slips, etc. Mr. Deshpande is correct
in stating that these details were never asked for in the notice issued
under Section 148A(b) of the Act or later.
6. Mr. Deshpande is also correct in submitting that for the first
time in this order there is even an allegation that investigation by
Central Goods and Service Tax Department revealed that KMPL was
indulging in non-genuine transactions and was merely passing
Gaikwad RD
4/5 508-aswp-15619-2023-J.doc
accommodation entries. Therefore, the business that Petitioner had
with KMPL was only on paper. There is an observation that Assessee
has shown sales to KMPL in its books of account which is non-
genuine. There is nothing to indicate how the AO has come to such a
conclusion notwithstanding accepting the fact that Petitioner had
submitted copy of financial statement, ledger details, ledger account
details of GST sales in respect of tax invoices of all parties and copy
of bank statement of HDFC Bank through which KMPL had made
payment. Mr. Deshpande also pointed out that the AO in his order
impugned has stated Petitioner failed to submit E-way bills whereas
in the letter dated 20th March 2023 at Annexure A is a copy of the tax
invoices and E-way bills. Mr. Deshpande also submits that perhaps
the toll booth receipts may not be available because that would be
paid by the transporter, but nevertheless an attempt will be made to
submit the same.
7. Therefore, we have no hesitation in quashing and setting aside
the impugned order dated 31st March 2023 passed under Section
148A(d) of the Act and remand the matter for de novo consideration.
Mr. Deshpande states that the documents alleged to have not been
submitted in the impugned order shall be filed within two weeks
from today. The AO shall within four weeks thereafter dispose the
notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act after giving a personal
hearing to Petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated at least
Gaikwad RD
5/5 508-aswp-15619-2023-J.doc
five working days in advance. The order to be passed shall be a
reasoned order and the AO shall also make out a case as to why
notwithstanding Petitioner submitting the tax invoices, E-way bills,
bank statements to prove payment received by way of banking
channel from KMPL and Petitioner having paid the GST component,
why he would still consider it as a non-genuine transaction.
8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
9. Petition disposed. No order as to costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Gaikwad RD
Date: 05/03/2024 19:07:01
