Shsurinder Gupta v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh And Another

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH SHSURINDER GUPTA. CW P-25211-2015.Date of Decision: 28.01.2019Petitioner. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN FE FE Present:Mr.Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner,Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the respondents AJAY TEWARI, J.(ORAL) inBy this petition, the petitioner has challenged the issuance ofnotice dated 19.03.2015 under Section 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short the Act) for the purpose of re-assess the income for theassessment year 2008-2009 and impugned order dated 02.11.2015. — ?DThe issue came up because of the complaint made by thepetitioner himself in which he claimed that he had incurred expenses ofRs.50 lakhs on the marriage and had given 120 tolas of gold to the family ofhis daughter-in-law. 3,The challenge is that on the basis of this the re-opening ofassessment is a fishing and roving inquiry. Learned counsel for therevenue has relied upon the decision of this Court in6Jagan Nath Singhal ,Vs. Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax _ and another, 242 ITR 554 %&'(- wherein also a person had filed a complaint against his son-in-law inwhich he had stated that he had given certain amount as dowry and incurred certain expenses and that having come to the notice of the Assessing Officerhe had issued similarly a notice under Section 148 of the Act. In theaforesaid the Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of IndiaIn)Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SOC).This Court had held in Jagan Nath (supra) as under:- “Applying the aforesaid tests to the present case, wehave no hesitation in holding that the affidavit of the daughterof the petitionerformed a reasonable groundfor the AssessingOfficer to entertain a prima facie reason to believe about theescapement of income. It cannot, therefore, be held that theproceedings had been initiated without jurisdiction. We may,however, clarify that we have merely examined the validity ofthe proceedings at the initiation stage only and have not goneinto the merits of the case of the assessee. The assessee wouldbe free to lead evidence in the reassessment proceedings toshow that the expenditure incurred by him on the marriage ofhis daughter was not Rs.7 to 8 lakhs but was Rs.70 to 80thousand as alleged by him and, therefore, no income hadescaped assessment. With the above observations, the writ petition standsdismissed. 4The fact of the present case are identical. In the circumstances, the petition stands dismissed. 5 Since the main case has been decided, the pending application,if any, also stands disposed of, 28 0] 2020|Raman JIAJAY TEWARIT]JUDGE IAVNEESH JHINGAN]JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/NoYes/No