2023 (4) TMI 115 - HC - Income Tax

High Court quashes Section 148A(d) notice, orders fresh assessment. Emphasis on evidence review.

Majestic Handicraft Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

The High Court set aside the notice and order issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, directing a fresh assessment by the Assessing Officer. ... Reopening of assessment - Validity of notice u/s 148A - principal allegation levelled against the petitioner is, that it is a beneficiary of accommodation entries provider - HELD THAT:- GSTIN of the supplier is adverted to in the first column of the document placed before us. The GSTIN referred to therein matches with the GSTIN placed on the invoices issued by Balaji Enterprises and Dev Sales Corporation. The impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act does not deal with this aspect of the matter. AO primarily proceeds against the petitioner, based on the fact that Balaji Enterprises was not found at the given address. There could be several reasons, as to why Balaji Enterprises was not found at the given address. What the AO is required to prima facie establish, is that the stand of the petitioner, which is that it had obtained supply of the readymade garments from the aforementioned entities was false. AO has not done his due diligence in that behalf. Therefore, according to us, the best way forward would be to set aside the order dated 28.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), and the consequential notice of even date i.e., 28.03.2022 issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act concerning AY 2018-19. Issues:The judgment involves a challenge against a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as well as an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and a consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.Section 148A(b) Notice Challenge:The petitioner challenged a notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent alleged that the petitioner benefitted from accommodation entries provided by specific entities, with a cumulative value of Rs.2,05,90,186. The petitioner denied taking accommodation entries, claiming it purchased and exported readymade garments. The petitioner submitted various documents, including GSTR returns, to support its case. The court noted that the Assessing Officer did not adequately consider the evidence provided by the petitioner. The court set aside the order and notice issued under Section 148A(d) and directed a fresh examination by the AO based on the documents submitted by the petitioner.Section 148A(d) Order Challenge:The petitioner also challenged an order dated 28.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The AO's primary basis for action was the inability to locate one of the entities mentioned in the case. However, the court emphasized that the AO failed to establish the petitioner's claim of receiving supplies from the entities was false. The court directed the AO to conduct a fresh examination, considering the documents provided by the petitioner and granting a personal hearing to the petitioner's representative.Conclusion:The High Court disposed of the writ petition, setting aside the order and notice issued under Section 148A(d) and directing a reevaluation by the Assessing Officer. The court emphasized the importance of considering the evidence presented by the petitioner and providing an opportunity for the petitioner to respond to any further material furnished by the AO.