Nandbhanwar Singh Rathore v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ncr Building,Statue Circle, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3817/2024 Nandbhanwar Singh Rathore, Aged About 57 Years, R/o- C- 196,Arjun Marg, Singh Bhoomi, Khatipura, Jaipur- 302012, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ncr Building,Statue Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya VijayFor Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Bapna Mr. Sarvesh Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 19/03/2024 1.Learned counsel for the petitioner has preferred this writpetition inter-alia challenging notice dated 31.03.2023 issuedunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafterreferred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2019-20 and allthe consequential notices/orders passed in pursuance theretoagainst the petitioner. 2.It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner thatafter issuance of the notice, petitioner had filed his reply. Theassessment authorities have not provided opportunity of cross-examination and have also not provided entire documents to thepetitioner. 3.It is also contended that on the basis of name appearing onsome books, proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance onSarwan Kumar Poddar Vs. Union of India:(2022) 142 taxmann.com34 (Calcutta), wherein the HighCourt of Calcutta observed as under:- “8. In the light of the facts which we have set out inthe preceding paragraphs, we have no hesitation tohold that there has been gross violation of principles ofnatural justice in the decision making processrendering the entire proceedings to be not sustainable.Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the orderpassed by the assessing officer. 9. For all the above reasons, the appeal is allowed andthe order passed in the writ petition is set aside.Consequently, the order disposing of the objection filedby the assessee dated 7th March, 2022 and theassessment order dated 31st March, 2022 are quashedand the matter is remanded to the assessing officer totake a fresh decision in the matter after furnishing allthe details and documents sought for by the assesseein their objections/representations. 10. We make it clear that the entire informationconcerning the Wadhwa Group are not required to befurnished to the assessee but that part of theinformation relevant to the assessee has to befurnished including the findings rendered by theSettlement Commission qua the assessee. Since theassessee has sought for an opportunity of cross-examination of the concerned person, who is stated bythe assessing officer to have given a statement againstthe assessee, the said person should be made availablefor cross-examination by the assessee and/or theirauthorised representative. The assessee is directed toco-operate in the de novo proceedings and suchproceedings shall be commenced and concludedexpeditiously.” 4.Mr. Siddharth Bapna, learned counsel for the respondent hasput his appearance on advance copy. It is contended that thenotice was issued wayback on 31.03.2023, the petitioner did notchoose to challenge the notice and participated in the proceedingsand the petition was rejected on the account of delay inapproaching this Court. 5.It is also contended that the Apex Court in RaymondWoollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors.: (2008) 14 SCC 218 observed the following: 4.Mr. Siddharth Bapna, learned counsel for the respondent hasput his appearance on advance copy. It is contended that thenotice was issued wayback on 31.03.2023, the petitioner did notchoose to challenge the notice and participated in the proceedingsand the petition was rejected on the account of delay inapproaching this Court. 5.It is also contended that the Apex Court in RaymondWoollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors.: (2008) 14 SCC 218 observed the following: “3. In this case, we do not have to give a final decisionas to whether there is suppression of material facts bythe assessee or not. We have only to see whether therewas prima facie some material on the basis of which theDepartment could reopen the case. The sufficiency orcorrectness of the material is not a thing to beconsidered at this stage. We are of the view that thecourt cannot strike down the reopening of the case inthe facts of this case. It will be open to the assessee toprove that the assumption of facts made in the noticewas erroneous. The assessee may also prove that nonew facts came to the knowledge of the Income-taxOfficer after completion of the assessment proceeding.We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of thecase. The questions of fact and law are left open to beinvestigated and decided by the assessing authority.The appellant will be entitled to take all the pointsbefore the assessing authority. The appeals aredismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” 6.It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued and the assessingofficer was competent to issue the same. The petitioner filed replyto the said notice and has actively participated in the proceedings.It is also contended that thereafter, notice under Section 143(2) ofthe Act was also given to the petitioner, to which he has not filedreply. 7.We have considered the contentions. 8.Assessing Officer is well within his right to issue notice underSection 148 of the Act if he has any information of the incomechargeable to tax, but has escaped assessment. The AssessingAuthority has accordingly issued notice to the petitioner, to whichhe has filed reply. This is not a stage where the writ petition canbe entertained as the matter is still before the assessingauthorities and any assessment made therefrom is subject to filingof appeal before the Appellate Authority. 9.Considering the above, we do not find any ground to entertain the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J LAKSHYA-DAKSH/31