Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Aryan Management Services Private Limited,
filed a writ petition challenging:
- The
order dated 26 July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d), and
- The
notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2014–15.
The petitioner contended that:
- It
is a small company earning rental income and had no need for external
funding.
- It
maintained a single bank account and denied any transaction with the
alleged person (Hasmukh Mehta).
- The
material relied upon by the department (including diary entries and statements)
was never supplied.
The Revenue alleged that:
- The petitioner received ₹1.72 crore through accommodation entries as reflected in seized diary records.
Issues Involved
- Whether
reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 and 148A(d) are valid without
supplying underlying material to the assessee.
- Whether
failure to provide relevant information violates principles of natural
justice.
- Whether
reassessment based on vague and non-specific allegations is sustainable in
law.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The
impugned order was passed without application of mind.
- No
material evidence forming the basis of allegations was provided.
- The
show cause notice was vague and based on borrowed satisfaction.
- The
petitioner’s name did not clearly appear in the alleged documents.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The
Investigation Wing found entries in seized records indicating receipt of
₹1.72 crore.
- The
transactions were allegedly accommodation entries from non-genuine
entities.
Court’s Findings
- The
Assessing Officer failed to provide specific details of transactions,
including cheque entries.
- The
material relied upon in the notice and order was not supplied despite
request.
- This
resulted in denial of a fair opportunity to respond.
- The
Court relied on the principle laid down in Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs
ACIT (398 ITR 198) regarding disclosure of material.
Court Order / Decision
- The
impugned order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 were set
aside.
- The
matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh
consideration.
- Directions
issued:
- AO
to provide additional material within 4 weeks
- Assessee
to file reply thereafter
- AO
to decide the matter within 4 weeks thereafter
Important Clarification
- The
Court clarified that rights and contentions of all parties remain open.
- The judgment reinforces that non-disclosure of material vitiates reassessment proceedings.
Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2022:DHC:3325-DB/MMH29082022CW124222022_182442.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