Delhi High Court
Dhruv Suri vs Income Tax Officer, Ward ... on 9 August, 2023
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decision delivered on: 09.08.2023
+ W.P.(C) 10513/2023 & CM Nos.40780-81/2023
DHRUV SURI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Nitin Gulati and Ms Reena
Gandhi, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 30(5),
DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Shlok Chandra, Sr Standing
Counsel with Ms Priya Sarkar,
Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
CM No.40781/2023
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 10513/2023 & CM No.40780/2023 [Application filed on behalf of
the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. Issue notice.
2.1 Mr Shlok Chandra, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on
behalf of the respondents/revenue.
3. Given the directions that we propose to issue, Mr Chandra says that
he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit and he will argue the matter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:TARUN
RANA
Signing Date:16.08.2023
16:24:55
based on the record presently available with the court.
3.1 Therefore, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the
matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage itself.
4. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
5. The record shows that the Assessing Officer (AO) has triggered
reassessment proceedings against the petitioner, as he had entered into high
value transactions, inter alia, concerning the subject immovable property.
6. Mr Nitin Gulati, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, does not
dispute the fact that the subject immovable property was sold by the
petitioner to two persons, i.e., Mr Sriram Jayaraman Subramanian and Ms
Kamakshi Sriram Iyer for a cumulative amount of Rs.1,20,25,000/-.
6.1 According to Mr Gulati, the petitioner had purchased the subject
immovable property in 2010 for Rs.75,45,096/-.
6.2 It is also Mr Gulati's submission that the purchase of the subject
property was partly funded through a loan taken from ICICI Bank
amounting to Rs.67,26,641/-. The balance amount, we are told, was sourced
through savings available with the petitioner.
6.3 The petitioner appears to have furnished the loan statement to the AO.
7. According to the petitioner, he earned capital gains amounting to
Rs.12,42,429/-. Besides this, the petitioner claimed that he also earned
interest of Rs.419/- on the amount available in the account maintained with
HDFC Bank.
8. Thus, the petitioner's assertion was that he had not earned any other
income, apart from the amounts indicated hereinabove, from sale of property
and interest.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:TARUN
RANA
Signing Date:16.08.2023
16:24:55
9. On a perusal of the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the AO under
Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"], it emerges
that he has taken umbrage due to the petitioner's failure to submit the sale
deed/agreement to sell, certificate of transfer of rights by the builder and/or
the possession letter.
9.1 Mr Gulati says that had these documents been asked for, they would
have been submitted by the petitioner,
10. A perusal of the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act shows
that, according to the AO, he appears to be moving to the position that
income amounting to Rs.1,19,40,919/- has escaped assessment.
11. We may note that Mr Gulati says that if the acquisition price of the
subject property is taken into account, the escaped income will be less than
Rs.50,00,000/-.
11.1 In this context, Mr Gulati also submits that the reassessment
proceedings have been commenced beyond three (3) years from the end of
relevant AY, i.e., AY 2016-17, and, therefore, are time-barred.
12. We would have accepted the submission of Mr Gulati, but for the fact
that, concededly, the petitioner did not file his Income Tax Return.
13. Therefore, according to us, the matter may require further inquiry.
14. That said, before the AO proceeds further, he will give an opportunity
to the petitioner to submit further documents in support of his defence (to
which, we have made a broad reference hereinabove).
15. The AO will also deal with the stand of the petitioner that the subject
property which was sold, was bought in and about 2010, at the price
indicated hereinabove.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:TARUN
RANA
Signing Date:16.08.2023
16:24:55
16. Therefore, the AO will, in any event, deal with Mr Gulati's
submission that notwithstanding the fact that Return of Income(ROI) had
not been filed, the escaped income would not exceed Rs.50,00,000/-.
17. This exercise will be undertaken before passing an assessment order.
18. On being queried, Mr Gulati concedes that the ROI has not been filed
pursuant to the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.
19. The petitioner is given leeway to file the ROI within the next thirty
(30) days.
20. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. Consequently,
the pending interlocutory application shall stand closed.
21. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the judgment.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
AUGUST 9, 2023
aj
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:TARUN
RANA
Signing Date:16.08.2023
16:24:55
