Prakash Kumar Chandnani Son Of Shri Chander Kumar Chandnani v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle (International Taxation),Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 42/2025 Prakash Kumar Chandnani Son Of Shri Chander Kumar Chandnani,Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Flat No. 401, Sparkle Residency,Plot No. C-224, Gyan Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur Through HisAuthorised Signatory Shri Bharat Chandnani ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle (International Taxation),Jaipur Having Its Address At 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building,Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka withMr. Rohan Chatter andMs. Apeksha Bapna HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYALOrder 07/03/2025 1.Heard on admission. 2.Instant petition is directed against the order dated 29.11.2024passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 148A(d) of the of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’). 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that in the firstround of litigation, this Court had interfered with the order underSection 148A(d) of the Act of 1961, as reply of the petitioner was notconsidered. Further submission is that when the matter was againplaced for consideration along with the reply, there was no properconsideration of reply by the petitioner. 3.1Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that eventhough return for the relevant Assessment Year 2016-17 was not filed,the petitioner duly explained the payment towards investment. Hewould submit that as against the notice under Section 148A(b) of theAct of 1961 that the source of fund transaction of Rs.87,44,278/- remained unexplained, sufficient and proper explanation was offeredwith regard to various transactions including transaction of purchase ofimmovable property. It was stated by the petitioner that the purchasewas made not only by the petitioner, but his mother also and,therefore, only to the extent of the investment made by the petitioner,the amount was required to be considered and he was not required toexplain the remaining amount which according to the petitioner, wascontributed by his mother towards purchase of immovable property. Itis argued that this aspect was not properly examined by the authoritywhile considering petitioner’s reply and the impugned order came tobe passed which is patently illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 4.It is not in dispute that the petitioner-assessee did not file anyreturn of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 but on the basis ofcertain information relating to transactions amounting toRs.87,44,278/-, notices were issued to the petitioner seeking toreopen the assessment proceedings. 5.Earlier an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 waspassed without considering reply of the petitioner. That order wasassailed before this Court successfully. Vide order dated 07.10.2024,this Court set aside the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Actof 1961 on consideration that reply was not considered. Thedepartment was given liberty to consider the reply filed by thepetitioner on 17.03.2023 and take appropriate decision thereon inaccordance with law. 6.The reply of the petitioner was thereafter, considered by theauthority which led to passing of the impugned order. 7.The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that hehad duly explained all the transactions and, therefore, it was not a case of reopening of assessment is essentially based on determinationand consideration of various factual aspects of the matter pertaining tovarious transactions including a transaction of purchase of theproperty. 8.The petitioner’s contention is that he had duly explained bysubmitting that a part of the investment towards purchase of theproperty was made by petitioner’s mother, was considered by theauthority in the following terms:- 6.The reply of the petitioner was thereafter, considered by theauthority which led to passing of the impugned order. 7.The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that hehad duly explained all the transactions and, therefore, it was not a case of reopening of assessment is essentially based on determinationand consideration of various factual aspects of the matter pertaining tovarious transactions including a transaction of purchase of theproperty. 8.The petitioner’s contention is that he had duly explained bysubmitting that a part of the investment towards purchase of theproperty was made by petitioner’s mother, was considered by theauthority in the following terms:- “Further, the assessee was required to explaincomplete purchase source of the property concernedeither held by itself wholly or with anotherperson(s). In his reply, the assessee has claimedthat he purchased property alongwith his mother(Mrs. Shanta Chandru Chandnani). However, he didnot produce copy of bank statement maintained byhis mother to explain and justify the transaction andsource thereof. Even, there is nothing mentioned inpurchase deed which suggest that both personshaving equal ownership on the property concerned.The assessee did not explain and justify this fact.Accordingly, in absence of documentary evidencewith regard to payment source as well asexplanation on the part of the assessee itself, itcannot be ascertained that the remaining paymentof Rs.29,00,000/- (being 50% share of theassessee's mother) was made by the joint purchasei.e. assessee's mother. Considering the facts asdiscussed above, the property transaction ofRs.58,00,000/-remains unexplained which requiresfurther examination/verification.” 9.The above consideration would show that reply of the petitionerwas considered and upon consideration of their reply, the authority hasdrawn an inference that the matter requires consideration as theexplanation submitted by the petitioner was not found acceptable atthat stage. In sum and substance, the petitioner’s case that a part ofsource of fund towards purchase of property was provided by themother itself is under doubt. The order shows that the authoritydoubted the source of fund available in the hands of the mother. 10.The purpose and object of proceedings under Section 148A of theAct of 1961 is not to make assessment but to reopen assessment uponfulfillment of certain conditions which have been incorporated in theprovisions contained therein. The exercise which is required to beundertaken at this stage is limited and cannot be equated with adeeper exercise required to be undertaken towards assessment inassessment proceedings. 11.In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as iswell-settled, the Writ Court will not assume the role of AppellateAuthority to sit over a finding of fact even if it suffers from a mereerror of fact. The consideration would be whether the order is againstthe provisions of law or violates the principles of natural justice or is sopatently outrageous and arbitrary, that interference under Article 226of the Constitution of India would be warranted. We need not burdenour decision with the authorities in support of settled proposition oflaw that in writ proceedings, it is not the decision itself but thedecision making process which falls for scrutiny. In the present case, adetailed order has been passed by the authority and for the limitedpurpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether a case of reopeningassessment is made out or not, material on record was examined. 12.There is no violation of the principles of natural justice. It is noteven a case where the order has been passed without jurisdiction bythe authority who is not competent. There is no case of violation ofany statutory provisions, as such. Applicability of various provisions ofthe Act would essentially depend upon conclusion of facts on the basisof the materials placed on record. The applicability of provisionscontained in Section 149 of the Act of 1961 will depend uponassessment and finding that may have been recorded by the Assessment Authority during the assessment. This deeper examinationwould be required to be done by the Assessing Officer and not by theWrit Court. Therefore, in our opinion, no case is made out forinterference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. We leave the petitioner to submit allexplanations which have been given before this Court before theAssessing Officer to satisfy his case that it does not require anyaddition of income chargeable to tax. 13.Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the caseof Abdul Majeed Vs. Income Tax Officer in D.B. Civil Writ PetitionNo.7853/2022. That was a case on its own facts, distinguishable fromthe present case. In that case, on consideration of facts and that therewas absolutely no material on record to support the conclusion, theCourt interfered with the decision. The same is not here and this caseturns on different fact situation. 14. The instant writ petition is dismissed, accordingly. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J N.Gandhi/Sudeepak/8 (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ