Delhi High Court
Vega Technet Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(1), ... on 9 September, 2022
$~S-24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13171/2022 & CM APPLs.39885-39886/2022
VEGA TECHNET PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Amit Kaushik, Advocate.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(1), DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel
with Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr.Standing
Counsel and Mr.Nikhil Jain,
Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 09th 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
17th July, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
['the Act'] and the notice dated 18th July, 2022 issued under Section 148 of
the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the directions
of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 543, the Petitioner was issued a letter dated 25th May, 2022
under Section 148A(b) of the Act alleging that Petitioner had sold
immovable property of Rs. 6,79,00,000/-. He states that the petitioner filed a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:12.09.2022
reply on 14th June, 2022 to the said letter, wherein it was submitted that the
Petitioner had not sold any property during the year under consideration but
property had been registered in the petitioner's favour worth
Rs.8,19,61,960/- and that the Petitioner had filed multiple replies to the
notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act by the Intelligence and
Criminal Investigation Unit of the Tax Department in Delhi and Ghaziabad
on the issue of the purchase of property. He further states that in the
impugned order dated 17th July, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the
Act, the Respondents while admitting the factual mistake stated that since
the Petitioner already knew about the issue, he should have explained the
source of the purchase of the property in its reply.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Respondents never
asked the Petitioner to explain the source of purchase of the property. He,
however, states that the Respondents initiated the reassessment proceedings
on the ground that the Petitioner had not explained the source.
4. Issue notice. Mr.Puneet Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-
revenue, accepts notice. He reiterates that though there was factual mistake
in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, yet as the petitioner
knew the factual issue, he should have explained the source of purchase of
property.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that there has been clear violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch
as, the respondent never asked the petitioner to explain the source of
purchase of the property and passed the impugned order on the basis that
petitioner did not explain the source of the purchase.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:12.09.2022
6. Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and
notice issued under Section 148 dated 17th and 18th July, 2022 of the Act are
set aside and the respondent is given liberty to issue a corrigendum and a
supplementary show cause notice under Section 148A(b) within two weeks.
Thereafter, the petitioner is given liberty to file a reply to the notice issued
under Section 148A treating the transaction of sale as a transaction of
purchase within four weeks. The petitioner in its reply shall also explain the
source of fund for purchase of property. The Assessing Officer shall pass the
order under Section 148A(d) of the Act in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid direction and liberty, the present writ petition
along with applications stands disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
SEPTEMBER 9, 2022
TS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:12.09.2022
