2022 (9) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../2022 and CM APPL. 35472/2022 (for stay) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as well as the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act both dated 30th July, 2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a company engaged in the business of sale and purchase of properties and it had filed its return of income on 15th January, 2018 for the AY 2017-18 declaring an income of Rs.16,36,874/-. She states that the Petitioner was issued a letter dated 25th May, 2022 in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... states that the Respondents passed the impugned order dated 30th July, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act, rejecting the contentions of the Petitioner stating that the amount of Rs.56,00,000/- (consideration received against the property) was not accounted for and the same had escaped income. She points out that in the show cause notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, there was no allegation against the Petitioner requiring it to account for the receipt of Rs.56,00,000/- and moreover, the Petitioner had disclosed the fact of the sale of the property for a consideration of Rs.56,00,000/- as a part of its turnover on the basis of which the penalty under Section 271D of the Act had been levied on the Petitioner by the authorities.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to its TDS return as well as to the Income Tax Return before the Assessing Officer. He emphasizes that the documents and accounts in support of the aforesaid submissions were not produced before the Assessing Officer by the petitioner. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not consider the contention of the petitioner that the amount of Rs.56,00,000/- received as consideration for the property has already been disclosed by the petitioner in its return and that the said fact had been admitted by the authorities in the penalty order passed under Section 271D of the Act. Further, the fact that TDS on the sale consideration of Rs.56,00,000/- was duly reflected in the Form 26AS....