Facts of the Case

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging:

  • Order dated 29.06.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and
  • Notice dated 30.06.2022 issued under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2013–14.

The petitioner contended that:

  • It was not granted adequate opportunity to respond to the show cause notice.
  • The documents supplied initially were illegible.
  • Legible copies were provided only on 18.06.2022, and hence, time to reply should have been computed from that date.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the reassessment order under Section 148A(d) was passed in violation of principles of natural justice?
  2. Whether insufficient time to respond invalidates reassessment proceedings?
  3. Whether the writ jurisdiction can be invoked at the stage of reassessment notice?

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner argued that as per the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India vs Ashish Aggarwal, reasonable time (two weeks) must be granted to respond.
  • The documents relied upon by the department were initially illegible and unreadable.
  • After receiving legible documents on 18.06.2022, the petitioner reasonably expected time till 02.07.2022 to file objections.
  • Passing the order on 29.06.2022 deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity of hearing.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Revenue contended that legible documents were already provided initially, and additional copies were given only as a precaution.
  • It was further argued that the petitioner relied on fabricated bills lacking basic details such as supplier address and contact information.
  • Statements of an alleged supplier indicated that transactions reflected in bank accounts were not carried out by him, suggesting accommodation entries.

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The Court reiterated that principles of natural justice are flexible and depend on facts of each case.
  • It held that a prima facie case of escapement of income existed based on material including supplier statements.
  • The dispute regarding whether documents were legible or not cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
  • The issuance of notice under Section 148 was justified.

Final Order:

  • The writ petition was dismissed.
  • The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter independently on merits without being influenced by the Court’s observations.

Important Clarification

  • The Court clarified that observations made in the judgment are prima facie and shall not affect the final adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

 Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2022:DHC:2526-DB/MMH08072022CW103072022_171106.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.