2022 (9) TMI 1148 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - order issued u/s 148A(d) - HELD THAT - This Court sets aside the order issued under Section 148A(d) for the assessment year 2014-15 and directs the respondents-revenue to issue a supplementary notice u/s 148A(b) within four weeks enclosing all the relevant material, information and documents, including the two documents shown to this Court today after redacting third party information. The petitioner is given liberty to file an additional reply/response within four weeks thereafter. Along with its reply/response, the petitioner shall enclose copies of its Demat Account and its Bank Account Statement. AO is directed to pass a fresh order u/s 148A(d) of the Act in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and order issued under Section 148A(d) for Assessment Year 2014-15.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 17th May, 2022, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 29th June, 2022, issued under Section 148A(d) for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The petitioner declared an income of Rs.10,80,404/- for the relevant Assessment Year, and in response to the notice, denied any transactions with Mr. Naresh Manakchand Jain, providing income details and bank statements. However, the order was issued rejecting the petitioner's contentions for lack of supporting evidence regarding the alleged transactions worth Rs.87,60,348/-. The court noted the absence of any transaction evidence between the petitioner and Mr. Naresh Manakchand Jain in the record, questioning how the petitioner could prove a negative assertion.

Mr. Abhishek Maratha, representing the revenue, informed the court that information from Central Circle -2(1), Mumbai revealed the petitioner's involvement as a beneficiary of accommodation entries from Mr. Naresh Manekchand Jain and associates manipulating penny stock scrip prices. The petitioner's name appeared in the list of beneficiaries who transacted in such scrips during the financial year 2013-14. The court emphasized that documents shown by Mr. Maratha should have been enclosed with the original notice under Section 148A(b) to the petitioner.

In the judgment, the court set aside the order dated 29th June, 2022, issued under Section 148A(d) for the assessment year 2014-15. It directed the revenue to issue a supplementary notice under Section 148A(b) within four weeks, enclosing all relevant material and documents, including those presented in court. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to file an additional reply within four weeks, along with providing copies of Demat Account and Bank Account Statement. The Assessing Officer was instructed to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) in compliance with the law, clarifying that the court did not comment on the merits of the controversy, leaving the rights and contentions of all parties open. The writ petition and applications were disposed of with these directions.