> v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 3408/2025 CM APPL. 16085/2025 HANS RAJ DHANKAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr Himanshu Upadhyay and Ms Ruby Sharma, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, SSC, Ms Monica Benjamin and Ms Easha Kadian, JSCs for the Revenue. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R27.03.2025 % 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 27.02.2024 [impugned order] passed by the respondent, whereby the petitioner’s application for stay of demand during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was not acceded to. The petitioner was further called upon to deposit twenty per cent of the disputed demand in terms of the CBDT instruction number 1914 and as partially modified by Office Memorandum dated 31.07.2017. 2.The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [theAct] alleging that his income had escaped assessment for Assessment Year 2015-16 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. The petitioner was called upon to file the return for the relevant AY. 3.Thereafter, the petitioner was issued various notices, however, it is alleged that the petitioner did not provide the information as sought for by the Assessing Officer . 4.Resultantly, the proceedings culminated in the assessment order dated 31.05.2023 whereby the AO made an addition of ₹ 10,00,00,000/- over and above the income of ₹ 2,54,14,750/- as returned by the petitioner. 5.A plain reading of the assessment order does not clearly indicate the ground on which the said addition has been made. Although the assessment order refers to Section 69A of the Act, the petitioner had denied that he had received any such sum during the Financial Year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16. The petitioner had also called upon the AO to indicate the basis on which the petitioner is stated to have received the said amount or the details of the transaction on the basis of which the addition is sought to be made. However, the record, as produced, does not indicate any comprehensible reasons, which could possibly lead to the said addition. 6.Mr Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue referred to paragraph no.3.2.1 of the assessment order, which encapsulates the reason why the addition has been made. The said extract of the assessment order is set out below:- “3.2.1 Description of Issues involved Information received in this case in connection with financial irregularities committed by Hans Raj Dhankar (Prop. of H R Builders). On perusal of statements of Tarmet, Syndicate Bank, Cantt. Branch, Delhi, payments have been made to H.R. Builders by DSIIDC, Delhi Government Account, Syndicate Bank, Bawana, although no subcontracting was allowed and still whole government payment is leaking to the assessee and no money was paid to Government Exchequer. On perusal of the “Verification Details” sheet as received from Insight Portal, the assessee is involved in financial irregularities resulting into loss to Government Funds to an estimated extent of Rs.10,00,00,000/-.” 7.Whilst it does appear from the above that some allegations have been made, we are at a loss to understand precisely as to what the AO has alleged. We also requested Mr Kumar, to explain the transaction, however, he is also unable to explain as to what exactly is the allegation on the basis of which the assessment order is passed. 8.In the given circumstances of this case, it would be manifestly erroneous to compel the assessee to deposit any amount against the demand raised, the reasons of which, as stated above, are difficult to comprehend. Accordingly, we allow the present petition and restrain the Revenue from taking any steps (coercive or otherwise) for recovery of the demand pursuant to the assessment order, till the disposal of the appeal, preferred by the petitioner. 7.Whilst it does appear from the above that some allegations have been made, we are at a loss to understand precisely as to what the AO has alleged. We also requested Mr Kumar, to explain the transaction, however, he is also unable to explain as to what exactly is the allegation on the basis of which the assessment order is passed. 8.In the given circumstances of this case, it would be manifestly erroneous to compel the assessee to deposit any amount against the demand raised, the reasons of which, as stated above, are difficult to comprehend. Accordingly, we allow the present petition and restrain the Revenue from taking any steps (coercive or otherwise) for recovery of the demand pursuant to the assessment order, till the disposal of the appeal, preferred by the petitioner. 9. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 27, 2025/sms TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any