Mahalaxmi Dye India Pvt.ltd v. Asst.commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr

$~60 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 14855/2022 MAHALAXMI DYE INDIA PVT.LTD..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Advocate versus ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR ..... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate % Date of Decision: 20[th]October, 2022 CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J: 1.Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 18[th]May, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort ‘Act’) and the order dated 26[th]July, 2022 passed under Section148A(d) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2.Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the impugned order isarbitrary and cryptic since sum of Rs.1,18,000,000/- is held to have escaped assessment without considering that no accommodation entry was taken bythe Petitioner. He states that the business of trading in chemical and otherallied goods and the transaction took place during the year with theproprietor of M/s Seema Enterprises, Seema Gupta, through proper bankingchannels. He states that the Petitioner as well as M/s Seema Enterprises filedtheir DVAT returns which were duly acknowledged by the Department. Hestates that the Forms 2A and 2B duly matched upon verification by theDepartment. He states that the impugned order has been passed without anyapplication of mind and without appreciating the nature of business of thePetitioner. 3.A perusal of the paper book reveals that during the investigation it hasbeen found that M/s Seema Enterprises is not involved in any real businessand hence the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that itmade payments in the course of business was not accepted. Further, in theimpugned order the Assessing Officer has specifically recorded that theproprietor Smt. Seema Gupta has accepted that her firm was not engaged inreal business activities. This Court is of the view that merely filing of VATreturns cannot be held to establish genuineness of transaction especiallywhen it was not shown that the VAT Department had made any physical orspot enquiry. Moreover, neither M/s Seema Enterprises nor the Petitionerhad produced before the Assessing Officer the transport details, purchasecontract or bills with regard to the alleged purchases. Therefore, prima faciethis Court is also of the view that income has escaped assessment. 4.Accordingly, this Court finds no error in the impugned order. Signature Not Verified 5.Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty tothe Petitioner to file all the relevant documents/evidences and to urge all itscontentions and submissions before the Assessing Officer. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 20, 2022 AS