Delhi High Court
Ambika Kapur vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 5 September, 2022
$~S-27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12733/2022 & CM APPLs.38702-38703/2022
AMBIKA KAPUR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gaurav Jain, Advocate with
Ms.Akshita Goyal, Mr.Shubham
Gupta and Mr.Aditya Goyal,
Advocate.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL
CIRCLE INT TAX 2(1)(2) NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate with
Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 5th September, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21st
April, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
('the Act') along with notice dated 21st April, 2022 issued under Section 148
of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19 and proceedings initiated
pursuant thereto.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent initiated
the proceedings under Section 148A of the Act on the basis of an incorrect
assumption of fact that the petitioner had not filed her return of income and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:07.09.2022
hence income to the tune of Rs.30,57,78,545/- in relation to financial
transactions entered by the Petitioner during the year, had escaped
assessment.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner filed a
detailed reply dated 14th April, 2022, wherein the Petitioner explained to the
Respondent that contrary to the allegations, the Petitioner had filed return of
income for the relevant assessment year and further disclosed all the
financial transactions alleged to have escaped assessment in the said return
of income, except for one alleged transaction amounting to Rs.3,79,08,575/-
of which the Petitioner had no knowledge and further requested the
Respondent to provide details about the said transaction.
4. Issue notice. Mr.Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents-
revenue, accepts notice. He states that the petitioner had not provided
sale/purchase deed to the Assessing Officer and had not explained the
transaction qua the amount of Rs.3,79,08,575/-.
5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
sale/purchase deed was never asked for by the Assessing Officer. He states
that the petitioner is willing to supply the same, if so directed by this Court.
He further states that the 'statement of reportable account under Section
285BA(1) of the Act is not a transaction. He submits that Section 285BA(1)
of the Act casts a duty/obligation on the financial institution or bank to
forward the details with regard to the high value transactions to the Income
Tax Department.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the
primary allegation in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act is
that the petitioner has not filed ITR for the assessment year 2018-19.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:07.09.2022
However, as the said fact has been rebutted by the petitioner, the Assessing
Officer should have given a finding with regard to this fact at least in the
order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Further, as it is the
petitioner's case that all the high value transactions have been reported by
the petitioner in its return of income and is willing to place on record the
sale/purchase deed before the Assessing Officer, this Court sets aside the
impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act as well as the
notice issued under Section 148 and remands the matter back to the
Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law. It shall be
open to the Assessing Officer to issue a supplementary notice explaining in
detail the transactions, which were allegedly not reported by the petitioner
totalling to Rs.3,79,08,575/-, within two weeks. The petitioner is also
directed to file the sale/purchase deed as well as a supplementary reply, if
required, with the Assessing Officer within four weeks. The Assessing
Officer is directed to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) of the Act
within four weeks thereafter in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition along with
applications stand disposed of. The rights and contentions of all the parties
are left open.
MANMOHAN, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
SEPTEMBER 5, 2022
TS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:07.09.2022
