M/S Rise Projects Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr

Signature Not Verified $~A-9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 13076/2022 & CM APPL.39590/2022 M/S RISE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.GautamJain,AdvocatewithMr.Piyush Kumar Kamal and Mr.AjitKumar Jha, Advocates.Through:Mr.GautamJain,AdvocatewithMr.Piyush Kumar Kamal and Mr.AjitKumar Jha, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. ..... RespondentsThrough:Mr.RuchirBhatia,Sr.StandingCounselwithMs.MansieJain,Advocate. Date of Decision: 28[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 (ORAL): CM APPL.39591/2022 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 13076/2022 & CM APPL.39590/2022 1.Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed underSection 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] and the noticeissued under Section 148 of the Act both dated 15[th]July, 2022 for theAssessment Year 2016-17. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the directionsof the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, 2022 SCCOnLine SC 543 the Petitioner was issued a letter dated 24[th]May, 2022under Section 148A(b) of the Act alleging that Petitioner had takenaccommodation entries of Rs. 99,00,000/- from a bogus company controlledand operated by an established entry provider, namely, Mr.Himanshu Vermaand it had purchased immovable property of Rs.13,10,58,000/- sources ofwhich were not explained. 3.He states that the petitioner filed a reply to the said letter wherein itwas submitted that the reassessment proceedings were sought to be initiatedon incorrect facts as the transaction with the entity allegedly owned byMr.Himanshu Verma had taken place in the Financial Year 2016-17 whichis relevant to the assessment year 2017-18 and not the year underconsideration i.e. assessment year 2016-17. He further states that in thereturn of income filed by the Petitioner for the year under consideration, ithad disclosed purchases under the heads of land, capital cost, labour andunder charges aggregating to Rs. 55,05,57,558/- which is far higher than thefigure of Rs. 13,10,58,000/- alleged in the notice. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue of purchase ofproperty had already been assessed by the Assessing Officer during originalscrutiny assessment for the assessment year 2016-17 and the saidtransactions had been accepted by the respondents vide assessment orderdated 19[th]December, 2018. He submits that the proceedings initiated underSection 147 of the Act are based on a mere change of opinion which is notpermissible in law, as there is no fresh tangible material before therespondents to take a contrary view to the one taken during original scrutiny Signature Not Verified assessment. He states that the impugned order dated 15[th]July, 2022 passedunder Section 148A(d) of the Act has been passed without considering thedetailed reply filed by the petitioner. 5.Issue notice. Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, learned senior standing counsel forthe respondents-revenue, accepts notice. 6.He, on instructions, states that as the petitioner’s contentions have notbeen considered while passing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) ofthe Act, the Assessing Officer has no objection if the present matter isremanded back for a fresh consideration. 7.Keeping in view the aforesaid, the impugned order passed underSection 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148A of the Act bothdated 15[th]July, 2022 for the assessment year 2016-17 are set aside and theAssessing Officer is directed to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) ofthe Act in accordance with law within eight weeks. The rights andcontentions of all the parties are left open. With the aforesaid directions, thepresent writ petition and application stand disposed of. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 28, 2022TS