Rajasthan High Court
Shanti Lal Khinchi Son Of Shri ... vs Income Tax Officer on 28 September, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6908/2022
Shanti Lal Khinchi Son Of Shri Bhura Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with
Ms. Apeksha Bapna,
Mr. Rohan Chatter,
Mr. M. Iqbal &
Mr. Saurav Harsh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with
Mr. N.S. Bhati
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
28/09/2022
Heard.
Though we had granted last opportunity to the respondent to
file reply, reply has not been filed and further time is sought.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the
petitioner is pressing for interim relief, respondent may not be
granted further time and prayer for interim relief be considered.
In view of the earlier order dated 22.08.2022, we are
inclined to hear learned counsel for the petitioner on the prayer for
stay.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
while initiating proceedings under Section 148(A)(b) of IT Act, the
respondent did not disclose entire information. He would submit
that though along with the notice under Section 148(A)(b) of IT
(2 of 4) [CW-6908/2022]
Act, certain transactions were disclosed, the transaction of Rs.
18,00,000/- as has been revealed in the impugned order passed
under Section 148(A)(d) of IT Act, was not disclosed to the
petitioner otherwise the same could have also been well explained
by the petitioner. He would submit that the respondent-authority
having accepted and agreed that Rs. 22,00,000/- have been
added twice in the information shown in INSIGHT Portal of the
department, addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- as mentioned in para '7'
of the impugned order, without the same having been disclosed to
the petitioner, renders the order illegal and arbitrary. He would
submit that had it been disclosed, the petitioner would have
immediately clarified that they are the single transaction(s) in
respect of which subsequently a certificate has also been issued
by the Bank on 19.04.2022 clearly certifying that Rs. 5,00,000/-
have been credited by draft in the account on 09.12.2014 with
further confirmation that no credit entry of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the
account has been made on 12.09.2014.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would
argue that in the matter of drawing proceedings under Section
148(A)(b) of IT Act and the notice issued there under information
was disclosed to the petitioner, the information related to his own
bank transaction and therefore, merely because transactions
mentioned in the para '7' of the impugned order was not disclosed
or specifically stated in the initial notice, would not render the
proceedings vitiated. He would further submit that in view of the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India v. Ashish Agarwal [(2022) SCC Online SC 543], it is
not mandatory to hold inquiry under Section 148(A)(a) of IT Act.
He would further submit that the scope and ambit of the
(3 of 4) [CW-6908/2022]
proceedings under Section 148(A) of IT Act are only to record a
prima facie satisfaction as to whether a case for reopening of
assessment under Section 148(A) of IT Act is made out or not. At
subsequent stages of the assessment proceedings, once
assessment proceedings are reopened, the petitioner would have
ample opportunity to explain various transactions and submit that
he is not liable to pay tax more than what had already been paid
by him in respect of the income pertaining to the assessment year
in question.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
On prima facie considerations, it is apparent from the record
that when notice under Section 148(A)(b) of IT Act was issued to
the petitioner, though number of transactions were made basis
seeking reply of the petitioner, the transactions mentioned in para
'7' of the impugned order passed under Section 148(A)(d) of IT
Act was not disclosed to the petitioner in notice issued under
Section 148(A)(b) of IT Act.
We further find that though the competent authority, in the
final order passed under Section 148(A)(d) of IT Act, agreed that
there is double entry of the same transaction of Rs. 22,00,000/-,
it harped upon a transaction of Rs. 18,00,000/- of which no detail
was given in the notice.
Further, we find that the grievance raised by the petitioner is
not an empty formality because it has been the case of the
petitioner that had an opportunity been offered to him to explain
the transactions mentioned in the para '7' of the impugned order.
He would have explained the same as is confirmed in certificate
dated 19.04.2022 of the concerned bank.
(4 of 4) [CW-6908/2022]
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the action of the
respondents prima facie appears to be in excess of the authority
conferred under the law.
The interim application is accordingly allowed.
Further proceedings shall remain stayed till final disposal of
the petition.
Learned counsel for the respondent is granted three weeks
time to file reply in the matter.
Rejoinder be filed within two weeks.
List the matter after six weeks.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
SAHIL SONI /102
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
