+ W.p.(C) 236/2025 & Cm Appl. 1149/2025 Pardeep Kumar Gulati v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 50 (1), Delhi

$~31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 236/2025 & CM APPL. 1149/2025PARDEEP KUMAR GULATIPARDEEP KUMAR GULATI .....Petitioner Through:Mr Anand Chaudhuri, Mr KumailAbbas and Mr Deepanshu Mehta,Advocates.Abbas and Mr Deepanshu Mehta,Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 50 (1), DELHI .....RespondentThrough:Mr Anurag Ojha, SSC, Ms HemlataRawat, and Mr V K Saksena, JSCs,Mr Dipak Raj and Mr ShubhamKumar, Advocates.Rawat, and Mr V K Saksena, JSCs,Mr Dipak Raj and Mr ShubhamKumar, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELAO R D E R % 10.01.2025 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anotice dated 27.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of theassessment year (AY) 2018-19. 2.The impugned notice is set out below:- “Notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961Sir/Madam/M/s. I have information that a search was initiatedunder section 132 of the Act in your case or in the caseof the person in respect of which you are theassessable under the Act on the date 11/04/2023.I am satisfied, with the approval of PrincipalCommissionerorCommissioner,thatbooksofaccounts or documents, seized or requisitioned undersection 132 or section 132A of the Act in case of ZEELAB GROUP AND OTHERS pertains or pertain to,or any information contained therein, relate to you orthe person in respect of which you are assessable under the Act. This notice is being issued after obtaining the priorapproval of the CCIT, DELHI-1 accorded on date 27-AUG-24 vide Reference No.100000065220811 andannexedherewith. 2.I, therefore, propose to assess or reassess suchincome or recompute the loss or the depreciationallowance or any other allowance or deduction for theAssessment Year 2018-19 and I, hereby, require you tofurnish, within a period of three months from the endof month in which this notice is issued, a return in theprescribed form for the Assessment Year 2018-19.” 3.The impugned notice expressly records that the assessing officer (AO)has issued the notice as he was satisfied that the books of accounts ordocuments, seized or requisitioned under section 132 or section 132A of theAct contains information pertaining to the petitioner. In the present case, thepetitioner had made a request to the AO to provide a copy of the requisiteapproval and the same was provided to the petitioner. 4.It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the satisfaction note asis required to be recorded in terms of proviso (c) to Section 148A of the Act,has not been recorded. The said contention is insubstantial. 5.Admittedly, the petitioner has annexed the copy of note prepared bythe AO, which is annexed as Annexure P4. The said note sets out theinformation as available with the AO. The entire note is not beingreproduced for the sake of brevity, however, the contents of paragraphs no.2& 4 are clearly dispositive of the controversy and are extracted below:- “2. Therefore, it is noticed that the assessee has givenunsecured loan amounting to Rs.68,00,000/- to Sh.Mark Gulati, which is beyond creditworthiness of theassessee as per the total income declared in the ITR.Therefore, the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.68,00,000/- is believed to have escaped assessmentduring AY 2018-19. ****** 4. In the instant case, as mentioned above, search hasbeen conducted after 01.04.2021 (date of search11.04.2023).Further,informationrelatedtotheassessee has been found during the search proceedings.Thus, the conditions of explanation 2(iv) of section148 are also complied with and AO has sufficientevidence on record to draw the satisfaction and I amsatisfied that income chargeable to tax has escapedassessment in this case.” 6.It is apparent from the plain language of the said note, that the AO hasrecorded the requisite satisfaction for issuance of the impugned notice underSection 148 of the Act. Rs.68,00,000/- is believed to have escaped assessmentduring AY 2018-19. ****** 4. In the instant case, as mentioned above, search hasbeen conducted after 01.04.2021 (date of search11.04.2023).Further,informationrelatedtotheassessee has been found during the search proceedings.Thus, the conditions of explanation 2(iv) of section148 are also complied with and AO has sufficientevidence on record to draw the satisfaction and I amsatisfied that income chargeable to tax has escapedassessment in this case.” 6.It is apparent from the plain language of the said note, that the AO hasrecorded the requisite satisfaction for issuance of the impugned notice underSection 148 of the Act. 7.In view of the above, the contention that the AO has not recorded hissatisfaction note, is rejected. 8.The petition is unmerited, and accordingly, dismissed with costquantified at ₹25,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within the period of two weeks from date. Pendingapplication is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ JANUARY 10, 2025 M TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any