Vipul Goel v. Income Tax Officer Ward 34 5 Delhi

$~1*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 13660/2024 & CM No.57252/2024*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 13660/2024 & CM No.57252/2024 VIPUL GOEL.....Petitioner Through:Mr. Bankim Garg, Adv.VersusVersus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 5 DELHI.....Respondent Through:Mr. Debesh Panda, Mr. VikramadityaSingh, Ms. Zehra Khan, Ms. YashikaGupta & Mr. A. Shankar, Advs.Singh, Ms. Zehra Khan, Ms. YashikaGupta & Mr. A. Shankar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R%14.10.2024 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 30.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned order), inter alia, praying as under: “(a)Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing Order underSection 148A(d) of the Act dated 30.03.2024 (Annexure P-4) andNotice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2024(Annexure P-5) by the Respondent being illegal and contrary tothe provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961; for assessment year2020-21.”Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 30.03.2024 (Annexure P-4) andNotice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2024(Annexure P-5) by the Respondent being illegal and contrary tothe provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961; for assessment year2020-21.” 2.The petitioner has filed his return of income for the assessment year(hereafterAY)2020-21on10.02.2021disclosinghistotalincomeof₹20,81,489/-. 3.The Assessing Officer (hereafter the AO) sought to reopen the assessmenton the ground that he had information to suggest that the petitioner’s income forthe relevant AY (2020-21) had escaped assessment within the meaning ofSection 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) and had issued anotice dated 13.03.2024 under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 4.A plain reading of the aforesaid notice indicates that it was based on a certain information, which was uploaded on the Insight Portal by otherauthorities including the GST authorities. A tabular statement indicating theinformation which the AO found, had suggested that the petitioner’s income hadescaped assessment as set out in the impugned notice, is reproduced below: 5.The aforesaid notice indicated that a search was conducted by theInvestigation Wing in the case of M/s Johnson Watch Group and M/s KapoorWatch Group on 31.10.2022 and analysis of the GST data of these companiesindicated that there were entities from which accommodation entries were takenin the form of bogus purchase and sale. 6.The petitioner replied to the aforesaid notice by a letter dated 26.03.2024setting out his explanation regarding the alleged transactions. 7.One of the allegations contained in the said notice related to the purchaseof immovable property for the value of ₹96,00,000/-. The petitioner explained that there were four owners of the said property who had purchased the samejointly and the petitioner’s share in the said immovable property was only one-fourth. He submitted that he had made the payment of ₹24,00,000/- as consideration for purchase of one-fourth share in the said property by availingthe loan from Kotak Mahindra Bank. 8.The AO had passed the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of theAct, prima facie, rejecting the petitioner’s explanation. The impugned orderappears to be a substantial reproduction of the said notice under Section 148A(b)of the Act. The impugned order also sets out the tabular statement setting outvarious amounts (except the amount of ₹14,22,75,751/- being the turnover) as wereset out in the tabular statement in the notice dated 13.03.2024. One of the rowsof the said statement, which referred to the turnover of ₹14,22,75,751/- was deleted. Consequently, the total value of the income alleged to have escapedassessment was reduced to ₹16,15,38,186/-. 8.The AO had passed the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of theAct, prima facie, rejecting the petitioner’s explanation. The impugned orderappears to be a substantial reproduction of the said notice under Section 148A(b)of the Act. The impugned order also sets out the tabular statement setting outvarious amounts (except the amount of ₹14,22,75,751/- being the turnover) as wereset out in the tabular statement in the notice dated 13.03.2024. One of the rowsof the said statement, which referred to the turnover of ₹14,22,75,751/- was deleted. Consequently, the total value of the income alleged to have escapedassessment was reduced to ₹16,15,38,186/-. 9.It is important to note that the amount of ₹96,00,000/-, being the value of the immovable property as reported by the Sub-Registrar-VIC Rohini, is alsoincluded in the value of the income suspected to have escaped assessment. Asnoted above, the assessee had explained his share in the immovable property isonly one-fourth and purchase of his share is funded by a home loan from KotakMahindra Bank Ltd. However, the impugned order does not indicate that theAO examined his contention. 10.It is also material to note that although the tabular statement as set out inthe impugned order now reflects only four transactions with an aggregate valueof ₹16,15,38,186/-, the impugned order continues to reflect that the petitioner’s income to the extent of ₹30,38,13,937/-, has escaped assessment. 11.In view of the above, we consider it apposite to set aside the impugnedorder and remand the matter to the AO to consider the petitioner’s response tothe aforesaid notice afresh and to pass an appropriate order. 12.The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications arealso disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 14, 2024‘gsr’ SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any