9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the said Act) dated 17 April 2023 for the assessment year 2016-17 consequent to the notice issued under Section 148A (b) of the said Act dated 24 March 2023. 2. The petitioner is an individual. For the assessment year 2016-17, the petitioner has filed his original return of income on 8 April 2017 inter alia, disclosing capital gain amounting to Rs.66,59,598/-. The said return was revised on 13 April 2017, but the capital gain disclosed remained intact. 3. The aforesaid return of income was selected for a scrutiny assessment by the respondents vide notice under Section 142 (1) dated 26 October 2018 of the said Act. In the annexure to the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to furnish the cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 48 should not be issued on the basis of the above information. 6. The petitioner filed a letter dated 8 April 2023 objecting to the above show cause notice and made submissions. Concerning the credit card transaction, the petitioner enclosed the bank statement and submitted that the credit card expenses pertain to the general and travel expenses of the petitioner and his family. Similarly, concerning the alleged cash receipt of Rs.1.30 crores, the petitioner made his submission on the merits as to why the same cannot be added as income in his hands. The petitioner also enclosed the sale deed valuation report, etc., supporting his objections. No jurisdictional issue was raised in the objections. 7. On 17 April 2023, the respondents passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (2024) 464 ITR 430. 9. Ms. Pawar, further submitted that the issues were examined during the course of the assessment proceedings since the bank statement was furnished in the course of the regular assessment proceedings. In view thereof, Ms. Pawar submitted that the impugned proceedings are without jurisdiction and ought to be quashed. She relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of 'Shri. Trilochanlal Goyal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. Writ Petition No.13342 of 2018 and the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of 'Narendra Kumar Shah Vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. (2024) 465 ITR 385 in support of her submissions. 10. Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel for the petitioner and respondents and have perused the documents brought to our notice. 12. At the outset, on a perusal of the objections raised vide letter dated 8 April 2023 by the Petitioner, we could not find any of the arguments raised today before us having been raised in the said objections. The objections are purely on the merits of the case. Therefore, on this count itself, we do not wish to interfere in our writ jurisdiction to permit the Petitioner to raise the grounds which have not been raised in the objections. 13. However, we permit the petitioner to raise this issue if permitted in law in the course of the assessment and appellate proceedings if and when such occasion arises. In any case, even if we had to cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the return was, in fact filed and the same has not been disputed in the order rejecting the objections. In our view, the reopening has to be done based on "information" and the said information has been reproduced in the annexure to the notice under Section 148A(b). It is based on the said information that the present proceedings are initiated. Although the respondents in the said annexure to the notice have stated that the return has not been filed, but in our prima facie view, that is not the basis on which the reopening is sought. The reopening is based on the information in accordance with the Risk Management Strategy Formulated by the CBDT. The respondents in their replies have stated that the statement in the information annexed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). We have perused the grounds raised in the petition and do not find any grounds having been raised on this issue except in para dealing with delay in explaining in approaching this Court. No foundational facts are stated in this regard in the petition. Therefore, this ground also cannot be considered. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise this ground before the appellate authority if and when any occasion arises. 19. Now we come to the submission of Ms. Pawar concerning approval under Section 151 of the said Act. Ms. Pawar submitted that the approval is without application of mind. We have perused the approval memo, which was annexed to the petition and we do not find pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
