Appeal Dismissed: Court Upholds Validity of Income Tax Order, Citing Substantial Evidence of Cash Loans and Expenditure.

The appeal was dismissed, and the order by the Single Bench was upheld. The court found the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be valid, based on substantial evidence of cash loans and unexplained expenditure. Allegations of procedural irregularities and violations of natural justice were rejected, as the court determined that necessary documents and inquiry details were provided. The court emphasized that factual disputes should be addressed in reopening proceedings under Section 148, not in writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Alleged procedural irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Assessment of evidence and factual disputes in writ jurisdiction.

Summary:

1. Validity of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appellant challenged the order dated 07.04.2023 under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Single Bench rejected the appellant's contention, stating that the assessing officer found credible evidence of actual borrowings, not merely "potential" ones. The court noted that the assessing officer determined the appellant had availed cash loans of Rs. 40,70,00,000/- through finance brokers, which involved unexplained expenditure under Section 69C and violations of Sections 269SS and 269T of the Act. The court held that the order was based on substantial materials and evidence, and thus, it could not be interfered with in a writ petition.

2. Alleged procedural irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice:
The appellant argued that the assessing officer did not provide the recorded reasons or information forming the basis for the proceedings, violating the principles of natural justice. The appellant contended that no documents were furnished to them, and the inquiry required under Section 148A(b) was not conducted. The court, however, found that the assessing officer had enclosed the details of the inquiry and supporting documents with the notice dated 14.03.2023. The court concluded that the order was neither non-speaking nor procedurally irregular, and the principles of natural justice were not violated.

3. Assessment of evidence and factual disputes in writ jurisdiction:
The court emphasized that it could not act as an assessing officer to scrutinize facts and evidence in a writ petition. The factual disputes and evidence presented required a deeper probe, which was beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. The appellant was advised to agitate all issues during the reopening proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the order passed by the learned Single Bench was upheld. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and concluded that all issues should be addressed in the reopening proceedings.

---