Full Text
Date of Decision: 10.05.2023
PRAVEEN BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate.
Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Shivendra Singh and
Mr Puneet Singhal, Jr. Standing Counsel.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 6054/2023 and CM APPL. 23695/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.
3. The petitioner/assessee has assailed via the instant writ petition, the order dated 20.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”]. 3.[1] Besides this, challenge is also laid to the notice dated 29.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 3.[2] In addition thereto, there is also a challenge laid to Instruction No.1 of 2022 dated 11.05.2022, issued by the CBDT.
4. Ms Ananya Kapoor, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of petitioner/assessee, fairly concedes that no response was submitted by the petitioner/assessee to the aforementioned notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 4.[1] Ms Kapoor’s contention is that a reply was filed on 30.04.2023. In this context, Ms Kapoor draws our attention to Annexure P-16 appended on page 117 of the case file. 4.[2] It is Ms Kapoor’s contention that the Case Related Information Detail (CRID) furnished along with notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, refers to the following transactions: Dayanand Singh Rs.33,81,000/- Lifeline Securities Ltd. Rs.35,51,459/-
I. Venture Capital Pvt. Ltd. Rs.3,20,000/-
4.[3] Ms Kapoor says that a perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner/assessee, albeit after the impugned order was passed under Section 148A(d), would show that the petitioner/assessee has taken the stand that he did not enter into any transaction with Dayanand Singh, as alleged by the respondent/revenue, or at all. Ms Kapoor submits that if the amount alleged to have been transacted with Dayanand Singh, i.e., Rs. 33,81,000/- is taken out of the equation, the alleged escaped income would be below Rs.50 lakhs.
5. Unfortunately for the petitioner/assessee, this stand was not taken in time.
6. Given this position, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction that before the Assessing Officer proceeds to pass an assessment order, he would verify the assertion made by the petitioner/assessee which is recorded in the reply, and in this context, also accord personal hearing to the petitioner/assessee and/or his authorised representative.
7. Consequently, pending application shall also stand closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J GIRISH KATHPALIA, J MAY 10, 2023 / tr