Special Appeal v. Th] December, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDAT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.1064 of 2020 Smt. Sapna Gupta .......Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Haridwar ………Respondent Shri Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent. 16[th] December, 2020 Coram: Hon’ble Ravi Malimath, A.C.J.Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma, J. Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. (Oral) Aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner is in appeal. The petitioner/assessee filed her return for the assessment year 2009-2010 declaring a total income of `5,19,760/-. An assessment under section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed on the total income of `8,49,215/-. The enquiry regarding a bank account with Punjab National Bank, Ghaziabad was undertaken in the name of M/s Meet Enterprises, Muzaffarnagar, by DDIT Investigation Unit, Dehradun. The report was furnished by the JDIT Dehradun to the Commissioner of Income Tax Dehradun. According to the report, M/s Meet Enterprises was a non-existent firm. It was found that during the year 2008-09, relevant to assessment year 2009-10, the assessee had claimed purchases to the tune of `1,06,80,540/- from M/s Meet Enterprises and had claimed payment of `73,45,040/- to M/s Meet Enterprises against these purchases. According to the revenue, it was a case of accommodation entries. The assessee had escaped assessment for `73,45,040/- within the ambit of Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, notices were issued. The said notices were sought to be challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, who considered the plea of the petitioner, came to the view that the notices were justly issued; the proceedings were initiated based on the tangible evidence, in order to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 17.11.2017 is erroneous; the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the material evidence on record; and the conclusion arrived at with regard to the accommodation entries is erroneous. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed, but quashing the notice. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent disputes the same. He submits that pursuant to the impugned notices, re-assessment has taken place. An assessment order had been passed on 31.12.2018. He has filed an appeal challenging the said order, which is pending consideration. Therefore, in view of the remedy being availed by the appellant, no interference is called for. 4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge is just and appropriate. The findings, as recorded by the authorities of the respondent, are just and appropriate. A report was also furnished, which was accepted. Even otherwise, subsequent to the impugned notice, proceedings have taken place and re-assessment had been worked out, which has been challenged in the appeal before the CIT appeals. Hence, for all these reasons, we do not find any ground to entertain this appeal. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 5. It is needless to state that the findings, as recorded by the learned Single Judge as well as through this order, are intended only for the purpose of disposal of these matters, and cannot affect the legal right of the appellant/writ petitioner in the proceedings, which are pending consideration. (Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Ravi Malimath, A.C.J.) SK/S.K.