2023 (5) TMI 477 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Registration of bogus long term capital gains, by trading in stock of reputed entities - , the foundation of the allegation is also that the petitioner/HUF is a non-filer - HELD THAT - Having regard to the fact that the AO has failed to notice that the petitioner/HUF had in fact filed its return, the matter would require re-examination by the AO. This is more so as when notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued, the petitioner/HUF had sought accommodation, and in this context, had uploaded a communication dated 22.03.2023. The request for accommodation was reiterated on 29.03.2023. In this behalf, our attention has been drawn to Annexure P-8 and P-9 appended to the case file - It appears that the AO, without acting on the aforementioned requests for accommodation, proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 30.03.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The impugned order and notice are set aside - The AO will, however, have liberty to carry out a de novo exercise. - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and a consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.

Details of the judgment:

Challenge to Order and Notice:
The writ petition challenges the order dated 30.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequential notice issued on the same date under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2019-20. The petitioner is alleged to have registered bogus long term capital gains through trading in stock with ante-dated contract notes, facilitated by a specific entity.

Contentions and Refutations:
The petitioner denies the allegations of bogus long term capital gains and being a 'non-filer'. The petitioner's counsel argues that no supporting material has been provided by the Assessing Officer (AO) to substantiate the claims. It is highlighted that the petitioner had filed the return for the AY in question on 28.02.2020, followed by a revised return on 10.01.2021.

Re-Examination and Set Aside:
Considering the failure of the AO to acknowledge the petitioner's filings and requests for accommodation, the court decides to set aside the impugned order and notice. The matter is to be re-examined by the AO, who is directed to provide the petitioner with relevant information and material in his possession and grant a personal hearing.

De Novo Exercise and Disposal:
The AO is given the liberty to conduct a fresh examination of the matter, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. The judgment concludes by disposing of the writ petition in the mentioned terms, with parties instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.