Vega Technet Private Limited v. %Date Of Decision: 09[Th]September, 2022

$~S-24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 13171/2022 & CM APPLs.39885-39886/2022 VEGA TECHNET PRIVATE LIMITED..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Amit Kaushik, Advocate.Through:Mr.Amit Kaushik, Advocate. versus %Date of Decision: 09[th]September, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1.Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated17[th]July, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[‘the Act’] and the notice dated 18[th]July, 2022 issued under Section 148 ofthe Act for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the directionsof the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, 2022 SCCOnLine SC 543, the Petitioner was issued a letter dated 25[th]May, 2022under Section 148A(b) of the Act alleging that Petitioner had soldimmovable property of Rs. 6,79,00,000/-. He states that the petitioner filed a reply on 14[th]June, 2022 to the said letter, wherein it was submitted that thePetitioner had not sold any property during the year under consideration butpropertyhadbeenregisteredinthepetitioner’sfavourworthRs.8,19,61,960/- and that the Petitioner had filed multiple replies to thenotices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act by the Intelligence andCriminal Investigation Unit of the Tax Department in Delhi and Ghaziabadon the issue of the purchase of property. He further states that in theimpugned order dated 17[th]July, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of theAct, the Respondents while admitting the factual mistake stated that sincethe Petitioner already knew about the issue, he should have explained thesource of the purchase of the property in its reply. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Respondents neverasked the Petitioner to explain the source of purchase of the property. He,however, states that the Respondents initiated the reassessment proceedingson the ground that the Petitioner had not explained the source. 4.Issue notice. Mr.Puneet Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-revenue, accepts notice. He reiterates that though there was factual mistakein the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, yet as the petitionerknew the factual issue, he should have explained the source of purchase ofproperty. 5.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the viewthat there has been clear violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuchas, the respondent never asked the petitioner to explain the source ofpurchase of the property and passed the impugned order on the basis thatpetitioner did not explain the source of the purchase. 6.Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) andnotice issued under Section 148 dated 17[th]and 18[th]July, 2022 of the Act areset aside and the respondent is given liberty to issue a corrigendum and asupplementary show cause notice under Section 148A(b) within two weeks.Thereafter, the petitioner is given liberty to file a reply to the notice issuedunder Section 148A treating the transaction of sale as a transaction ofpurchase within four weeks. The petitioner in its reply shall also explain thesource of fund for purchase of property. The Assessing Officer shall pass theorder under Section 148A(d) of the Act in accordance with law. 7.With the aforesaid direction and liberty, the present writ petitionalong with applications stands disposed of. MANMOHAN, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2022TS MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J