Puran Store v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxcircle 43- 1 & Ors

$~2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 4256/2025 and CM APPLs. 19697-98/2025 PURAN STORE THROUGH ITS PARTNER HARI RAMAGARWAL.....PetitionerThrough:MrAbhimanyuJhambawithMsThonpinao Thangal and Ms AyushiSrivastava, Advocates.AGARWAL.....PetitionerThrough:MrAbhimanyuJhambawithMsThonpinao Thangal and Ms AyushiSrivastava, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 43- 1 & ORS......RespondentsThrough:Ms Hemlata Rawat, JSC with Mr V.K Saksena, Mr Dipak Raj and MrSubham Kumar, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R%21.04.2025 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “a) A Writ of Certiorari or Writ, Order or Direction in the natureof Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Directionunder Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India quashingNotice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2024 for AY 2017-18; b) A Writ of Certiorari or Writ, Order or Direction in the natureof Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Directionunder Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India quashingorder u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 30.03.2024 for AY 2017-18; c) A Writ, order or direction under Article 226/227 of theConstitution of India staying the operation and effect of theassessment order dated 07.03.2025 till the disposal of the present Writ Petition.” 2.It is the petitioner’s case that in terms of the assessment order dated07.03.2025, an addition has been made on account of certain unexplainedcash expenses. The petitioner claims that no such addition could have beenmade as that was not the ground on which the reassessment proceedings hadbeen initiated. 3.The Assessing Officer had issued a notice under Section148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] calling upon the petitionerto respond to the information, which according to the AO was suggestive ofthe petitioner’s income for Assessment Year 2017-18 escapingassessment. The AO had information to the effect that large cash depositshad been made during the period 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 [demonetizationperiod]. Thereafter, the AO passed an order under Section 148A(d) of theAct holding that it was a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 ofthe Act. The AO had issued a notice dated 30.03.2024 under Section 148 ofthe Act, which was accompanied by the order passed under Section 148A(d)of the Act. 4.It is the petitioner’s case that although the reassessment proceedingshad been initiated on the basis of cash deposited during the demonetizationperiod, the assessment order has been passed on completely different basis,that is, on account of unexplained expenses. It is also stated that no additionhas been made on account of cash deposits during demonetization period.According to the petitioner, no addition can be made in reassessmentproceedings under Section 147 of the Act if no addition has been made onthe grounds on which the assessment was reopened.The petitioner also relies on the decision of this court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. CIT:(2011) 336 ITR 136. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenuesubmits that in view of the statutory amendments to the regime forreopening of an assessment, the aforesaid decision rendered in the context ofSection 147 – 151 of the Act as in force prior to 31.03.2021, may no longerhold good. 5.Concededly, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of an appeal.Inview of the above, we do not consider it apposite to entertain the presentpetition. It would be open for the petitioner to assail the impugned noticesand the assessment order in an appeal including on the grounds as stated inthe present petition. 6.We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits ofthe rival contentions. All contentions of the parties are reserved. 7.In the event, the petitioner files an appeal within a period of twoweeks from date, the same would be considered by the appellate authorityuninfluenced by the question of delay. 5.Concededly, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of an appeal.Inview of the above, we do not consider it apposite to entertain the presentpetition. It would be open for the petitioner to assail the impugned noticesand the assessment order in an appeal including on the grounds as stated inthe present petition. 6.We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits ofthe rival contentions. All contentions of the parties are reserved. 7.In the event, the petitioner files an appeal within a period of twoweeks from date, the same would be considered by the appellate authorityuninfluenced by the question of delay. 8.The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applicationsare also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 21, 2025/tr TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any