Facts of the
Case
The present writ petition concerned Assessment
Year 2016–17, wherein the petitioner, Nagandar Kumar Sharma, challenged
reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department.
The Revenue alleged that foreign outward
remittances made by the petitioner were not fully reported, leading to
alleged escaped income amounting to ₹1,12,79,027/-.
However, the petitioner contended that:
- The issue of foreign outward remittances had already been scrutinized
during the original assessment completed under Section 143(3) on 09.12.2018.
- The petitioner had disclosed total foreign remittances of ₹21,11,99,745/-,
including amounts reported in Form 15CA.
- The Assessing Officer had examined the issue and made no
additions during the original scrutiny assessment.
Subsequently, a notice under Section 148A(b)
was issued alleging escaped income based on data from the INSIGHT portal
Issues
Involved
- Whether reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A(b),
148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are valid when the issue
was already examined in original scrutiny assessment?
- Whether the Assessing Officer can reopen assessment without
proper application of mind and independent verification of data?
- Whether reliance on INSIGHT portal data without reconciliation with earlier disclosures justifies reassessment?
Petitioner’s
Arguments
- The petitioner argued that the entire issue of foreign outward
remittances had already been examined during scrutiny assessment under
Section 143(3).
- The Assessing Officer had accepted the disclosures and made
no addition, indicating full application of mind.
- The reopening was based on incorrect computation, as the AO
reduced already disclosed amounts from INSIGHT data without proper
reasoning.
- The reassessment proceedings amounted to a change of opinion, which is impermissible in law.
Respondent’s
Arguments
- The Revenue contended that information from the INSIGHT portal
indicated unreported transactions amounting to ₹4,96,17,097/-.
- After adjusting disclosed remittances, the AO concluded that ₹1,12,79,027/-
had escaped assessment.
- The Department justified reopening under Section 148A(b)
based on such information.
Court’s Findings / Order
- The AO failed to explain how the figure of ₹4,96,17,097/- was
derived and how it represented undisclosed remittances.
- The computation merely involved arithmetical adjustment without
proper reasoning or discussion.
- The petitioner had already disclosed a higher amount than what
was alleged, and the issue had been examined earlier.
- There was no independent application of mind by the
Assessing Officer.
Final Order:
- The Court set aside the order passed under Section 148A(d)
dated 19.04.2023.
- Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.
- Liberty was granted to the AO to initiate fresh proceedings in
accordance with law, after proper inquiry and providing opportunity of
hearing.
Important Clarification by Court
- Reassessment cannot be initiated merely on mechanical reliance
on third-party or portal data.
- The Assessing Officer must:
- Apply independent mind
- Provide reasons with clarity
- Ensure proper reconciliation of facts
- A previously examined issue cannot be reopened without new tangible material and proper reasoning.
Sections
Involved
- Section 143(3) – Scrutiny Assessment
- Section 148 – Income Escaping Assessment
- Section 148A(b) – Show Cause Notice before Reassessment
- Section 148A(d) – Order for Reassessment Proceedings
- Income Tax Act, 1961
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/RAS24052023CW71682023_131934.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general
information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify
the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal,
professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim
all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been
prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment