Wtax/831/2022 Of Sanjay Gupta v. Income Tax Officer-2 (4) And 2 Others

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 831 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sanjay Gupta Respondent :- Income Tax Officer-2 (4) And 2 OthersCounsel for Petitioner :- Suyash Agarwal,Sr. AdvocateCounsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mahajan,A.S.G.I.,Naveen Chandra Gupta Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned Senior Advocateassisted by Shri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for thepetitioner, Shri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for therespondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri Manish Gupta holding brief ofShri N.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the followingreliefs:- "(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing theorder passed under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act dated 30.03.2022(for A.Y. 2018-19), passed by the ITO-2(4), Pilibhit-1/respondent No.1(Annexure-9). (2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing thenotice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 30.03.2022(for A.Y. 2018-19), passed by the ITO-2(4), Pilibhit-1/respondent No.1(Annexure-10). (3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition restrainingthe respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 from proceedings against thepetitioner, for the re-assessment of income for A.Y. 2018-19 under section148 of the Act." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugnedorder under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hasbeen passed without adjudicating on the points which wereraised by the petitioner in the reply to the notice. He furthersubmits that there was no material before the assessing officerto initiate proceeding and, therefore, the impugned order underSection 148A(d) of the Act, 1961 is wholly without jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsels for the respondents supported theimpugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of learnedcounsels for the parties and perused the record of the writpetition. 6. It is undisputed that the assessing officer was having in hispossession the information received from DDIT(Inv.) 7(4), NewDelhi. As per information received, the petitioner was involvedin trading of shares of 'Alankit Limited' during the FinancialYear 2017-18. It was alleged that the assessee has shown LTCGexempt under Section 10(38) of the Act, 1961 in his IncomeTax Return for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Alongwith thenotice, a chart of transactions captured by the system andreported thereon was also given to the assessee. Perusal ofSchedule E1 of the Income Tax Return of the assessee showsthat the assessee has shown long term capital gain fromtransactions for Rs.17,12,811/- on which security transactiontax is paid. In his reply, the petitioner has also admitted that hehas shown some transactions in scrip of 'Alankit Limited'.From the information received, it was also revealed that'Alankit Limited' was a penny stock and the petitioner is abeneficiary of bogus profits through scrip of 'Alankit Limited'. 7. In view of the facts briefly noted above, we find that theassessing officer has correctly formed the opinion that this is afit case to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.Therefore, we do not find any good reason to interfere with theimpugned order. 8. For the reasons aforestated, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. It is made clear that the aforesaid observations have been made merely for the purpose of testing the validity of the orderunder Section 148A(d) of the Act, 1961. Order Date :- 4.7.2022SK