Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shri Mukesh Mehta vs Union Of India on 16 March, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4045/2022
Shri Mukesh Mehta S/o Bhagwan Chand Mehta, Aged About 49
Years, Proprietor M/s Siddharth Bullion, 1/8, New Cloth Market,
Pali-Marwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Finance, Ministry Of
Finance, North Block New Delhi - 110001
2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1, Aaykar
Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur 342010.
3. Additional/joint/deputy/assistant Commissiioner/income
Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, North
Block New Delhi 110001.
4. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1/2, Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Vikas Balia, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Sharad Kothari,
Mr. Mayank Taparia and
Mr. Priyansh Arora
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
16/03/2022
Heard.
Perused the material available on record.
The petitioner has questioned the reopening notice
dated 30.03.2021 (Annex.3) issued by the Income Tax Officer,
Ward-1, Pali under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The
petitioner asked the reasons for initiating proceedings under
Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act and in respect thereto,
brief details were provided vide communication dated 01.06.2021,
as per which, high valued cash deposits were found made in two
bank accounts ending with digits 158 and 863. It was stated in
(2 of 2) [CW-4045/2022]
the reasons that unexplained deposits of Rs.11,39,34,113/-
(Rs.60,29,123/- through RTGS and Rs.10,79,04,990/- in cash)
were made in these two accounts and the funds were then
transferred through RTGS. The petitioner submitted a
reply/objections stating that he/his firm has no connection
whatsoever with the two suspicious accounts. The said objection
raised by the petitioner has been disposed of by communication
dated 10.02.2022. The petitioner has raised a grievance that the
pertinent submission made regarding the petitioner having no
nexus with the two suspicious bank accounts has been totally
ignored while disposing of the objections. Thus, the proceedings
sought to be reopened under the impugned notice are bad in the
eyes of law.
In support of his contention, Mr. Balia has placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jeans Knit (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
& Ors. [(2018) 12 SCC 36].
Issue notice of the writ petition as well as the stay
petition to the respondents. Rule is made returnable on
20.04.2022.
In the meantime and till the next date of hearing,
further proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioner in
pursuance of the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021 (Annex.3)
shall remain stayed.
List on 20.04.2022.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
58-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
