2025 (1) TMI 710 - SCH - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - cash deposits made in the bank account of the petitioner - as decided by HC 2024 (11) TMI 1389 - DELHI HIGH COURT threshold stage of issuing a notice u/s 148 AO is not required to finally conclude whether any income has escaped assessment. The notice merely initiates the reassessment proceedings. Thus, all rights and contentions of the petitioner to contest the quantum as well as the taxability of the amounts as reflected in the impugned notice and the impugned order are reserved - HELD THAT - According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner what has been observed by the High Court in Para 10 of the impugned judgment is factually incorrect. If that be so, it was expected of the petitioner to go back to the High Court pointing out that there is an error. At this stage, the learned counsel sought permission to withdraw this petition as he intends to go back to the High Court. Special Leave Petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Summary

In the Supreme Court case presided over by Hon'ble Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, the petitioner, represented by Mr. Amar Gupta, Mr. Chanderkant Tyagi, and Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, sought to address a factual inaccuracy in the High Court's judgment, specifically in paragraph 10. The Court noted that the petitioner should have initially approached the High Court to rectify the alleged error. Consequently, the petitioner's counsel requested permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition to return to the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as "not pressed."