HC: Decision U/S 148 Without Assuming the Assessee’s Response is Invalid

The Delhi High Court (HC) has ruled that the ruling made in accordance with section 148 of the Indian Constitution without taking the assessee’s response into account is invalid.

Under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] Ashok Kumar Garg, the applicant has ordered on 30.03.2022 passed and the resulting notice of even date i.e., 30.03.2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act.

The Income Tax Department has the authority to review a person’s previously submitted income tax returns in accordance with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act of 1961. By delivering a notice under section 148 for income escaping assessment, the Assessing Officer may choose your income tax return for reassessment pursuant to specific pre-defined conditions.

The petitioner is accused of being the recipient of fraudulent purchase invoices provided by three organizations mentioned in the notice and the challenged ruling. It is the petitioner’s position that only two of the three companies identified have been dealt with.

Read More: Major 9 Provisions of Income Tax Act: All You Need To Know

The amount of suspected fraudulent purchase invoices is Rs.24,10,705/-, whereas the amount in issue is just Rs.13,73,503/-. So, it is the petitioner’s position that Rs.10,37,202/- was incorrectly added. The revenue said that the response was on record, but the challenged judgment incorrectly states that the appellant did not give any answer.

The Assessing Officer (AO) was instructed by Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju to conduct a de novo exercise after providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity, which would include providing the petitioner with copies of the approvals obtained in accordance with Section 151 of the Act as well as the information/material available to the AO.

The Court dismissed the writ petition in the aforementioned circumstances and gave the petitioner recourse rights if they felt wronged by the AO’s decision.

Case TitleAshok Kumar Garg Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
CitationW.P.(C) 1244/2023
Date01.02.2023
RespondentsMr Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel
Delhi High CourtRead Order
Arpit Kulshrestha

Arpit Kulshrestha seeks higher interests in financial services, taxation, GST, I-T, etc. Writes articles with depth knowledge and is extensive for the same. The resources provide effective articles for the products of SAG infotech which provides taxation and IT software. Writing from observations and researching makes his articles virtuous.

Recent Posts

No GST Returns Will Be Accepted If Filed More Than 3 Years Past Their Due Date

An advisory has been released by the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) which notifies…

6 hours ago

Delhi HC: Two Judgment Orders Against One SCN Cannot Be Accepted for the Same Period

It was cited by the Delhi HC that the two adjudication orders against one SCN…

8 hours ago

CBDT Allows Electronic Filing of Forms 3CEDA and 3C-O Via Notification No. 5/2024

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in an update for the taxpayers via the…

9 hours ago

October 2024 Records the 2nd Highest GST Collection, Driven by Domestic Sales

In October, Gross GST collection surged to 9% to Rs 1.87 lakh crore, the second…

11 hours ago

UP AAR: GST Will Be Levied on the Installation of Electricity Distribution Systems by DISCOMs

Goods and Services Tax (GST) is to get paid on the procurement of materials and…

2 days ago

Bombay HC Quashes Rejection Order for Voluntary GST Cancellation Due to Lack of Stated Reasons

The Bombay High Court carried that as the revocation orders for the registration cancellation on…

3 days ago