Gopal Son Of Shri Nathmal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Sikar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7808/2022 Gopal Son Of Shri Nathmal, Aged About 66 Years, ResidentOf Ward No. 12, Tehsil Sikar, Sikar 332001. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Sikar Having Its Address At TodiNagar, Sanwali Road, Sikar 332001. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, AdvocateFor Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Malani, Advocate forMr. Nikhil Simlote, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Judgment 15/07/2022 Heard. Assailing correctness and validity of the order dated29.03.2022 passed by the Assessing Authority in exercise ofpowers under Clause (d) of Section 148-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961, learned counsel for the petitioner would ferventlyurge before this Court to accept the version of the petitioneras submitted before the authority in the aforesaid proceedingsthat if various transactions of deposits, withdrawals are takentogether, it would not exceed Rs.50 lacs and therefore,reopening of the case and initiation of the proceedings underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 itself would bebarred. From the notice, reply submitted by the petitioner andthe impugned order which has been passed by the AssessingAuthority, we find that the operative reason for the authorityto proceed to issue notice under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 is that there were various transactions andtaking into consideration that the assessee had not filedreturn in the concerned assessment year relating to thefinancial year in which the transactions took place, it hasopined that its a case of issuance of notice under Section 148of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute raised is with regard to the nature oftransactions, which essentially would be the matter for inquiry by the Assessing Authority in further proceedings. Whetherthe transactions of redeposit are out of those which werealready in the hands of the assessee or any othertransactions, essentially is a matter of factual inquiry. The transactions by the assessee prima facie have beenfound to be unexplained, therefore, it will be for the petitionerto explain these transactions by leading appropriate evidencebefore the authority in proceeding under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 and to satisfy that those transactions,even if taken together, do not exceed the upper limit of Rs.50lacs, so as to remove the impediment under Section 149 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, once we are satisfied that the order doesnot suffer from any procedural error in the sense that theorder has been passed after giving an opportunity of hearing and consideration of reply, adequacy or sufficiency of thereasons assigned by the authority would be beyond the scopeand ambit of interference except in the case of perversity. Thematter would require inquiry on factual aspect, therefore, werefrain ourselves from commenting further in the matterexcept that at this stage no interference is warranted againstthe impugned order. With the liberty to the writ petitioner toraise all the grounds as raised in this case and any othergrounds which are available to him to explain varioustransactions in further proceedings, we are inclined todismissed the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Mohita /5