2024 (12) TMI 912 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - unexplained accommodation entry receipts - HELD THAT - Order u/s 148A(d) of the Act has been passed by the respondents. The order is based on the statement of Nikhil Soni given on oath during the search. Nikhil Soni admits that he had provided accommodation entry to the present petitioner through his business concerns which is reflected from the diary found and seized from the business premises of M/s Vivek Jewellers. Therefore, prima facie opinion was recorded that accommodation entry remained unexplained in the hand of assessee i.e. present petitioner which has escaped assessment from the Assessment Year - 2017 - 18. The petitioner is yet to explain the nature and source of the aforesaid income. The proceedings are within limitation as observed in para - 8 of the impugned order. The aforesaid entries are found in the material collected in search and seizure during the demonetisation period. The petitioner has not placed any material in respect of assessment proceedings conducted against M/s Vivek Jewelers Jindal Bullion Limited, therefore, detailed enquiry will be conducted u/s 148 of the Act by the authority, where the petitioner will get ample opportunity to prove his case. Hence, no case for interference is made out in the matter. Writ Petition dismissed.

Issues:
1. Validity of order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and notice under Section 148 for reassessment of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
2. Challenge against reopening of assessment based on third party statement.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition in light of alternative remedies available.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the order dated 28.03.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and the notice issued under Section 148 for reassessment of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in the trading of gold, silver bullion, and ornaments, had submitted its Income Tax Return under Section 139 of the Act on 31.08.2017. The Assessing Officer had accepted the return after scrutiny. However, subsequent search and seizure operations were conducted at the premises of related entities, leading to notices and further assessments. The petitioner contended that the reopening of assessment was unwarranted and amounted to harassment. The petitioner cited various judgments to support the argument that the notice under Section 148 was not valid. Despite the petitioner's submissions, the final order was passed on 28.03.2024, recommending the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 148 of the Act. The court, after considering the arguments, dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act.

Issue 2:
The petitioner argued against the reopening of assessment based on a third party statement, contending that such statements should not be the sole basis for reassessment. The petitioner emphasized that the search was conducted before 05.01.2017, and they had already undergone assessment under Section 153 of the Act. The petitioner relied on judgments from various High Courts to support the contention that fresh assessment could not be initiated solely based on third party statements. The Income Tax Department, however, argued that the petitioner had alternative remedies available to challenge the reassessment and that the writ petition was not maintainable. The court considered the statement given by Nikhil Soni during the search, admitting to providing accommodation entry to the petitioner, and found prima facie grounds for reassessment. The court held that detailed inquiry would be conducted under Section 148 of the Act, providing the petitioner with an opportunity to present their case, and ruled against interference in the matter.

Issue 3:
The Income Tax Department contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had recourse to raise grounds before the competent authority and appellate bodies. The department cited a judgment in support of this argument. The court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner would have ample opportunity during the detailed inquiry under Section 148 of the Act to substantiate their case. The court upheld the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, concluding that no grounds for interference were established.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and the notice issued under Section 148 for reassessment of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The court found prima facie grounds for reassessment based on the statement obtained during the search, and emphasized the petitioner's opportunity to present their case during the detailed inquiry under Section 148 of the Act.

← Previous Next →