TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate. J U D G M E N T MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL): 1. Present writ petition, being W.P. (C) 15828 of 2022, has been filed by Mr. Ajay Gupta, who is the Karta of the Petitioner's Hindu Undivided Family ('HUF'), seeking quashing of the order dated 18th July, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) ('impugned order') of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and the notice dated 18th July, 2022 passed under Section 148 ('impugned notice') of the Act, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 54(1), Delhi, for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2016-17. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the Petitioner Assessee was served with a Show Cause Notice ('SCN') dated 23rd May, 2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the contract notes issued by them were bogus and fabricated. He has further stated that these contract notes were not issued by his company. 4. It was found that shares were purchased on exchange in the name of one Sh. Rakesh Sharma and were subsequently transferred off-market to Tradenext Securities Ltd without any consideration and this was ultimately transferred to the beneficiaries. Sh. Rakesh Sharma has stated that his account was mis-used and he had lodged FIR in regard to the same. Sh. Rakesh Sharma has also stated that he has never opened any Demat Account. 5. Some of the beneficiaries have admitted that they had no knowledge of Share trading and they had arranged exempt LTCG for 2-3% commission. 6. Modus-Operandi(MO)- * C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m one of the dummy Demat A/c Mridul Securities P Ltd worth Rs. 9481600/-. xxx xxx xxx From the facts as discussed above, it is apparent that assessee is one of the beneficiary of bogus accommodation transactions of Rs. 94,81,600/-. Therefore, it is inferred that the income of assessee had escaped assessment for the AY 2016-17 for Rs. 94,81,600/-..." 3. The Assessee filed its reply dated 16th July, 2022 to the aforesaid SCN denying any transaction with Tradenext Securities and Kundu Group of Rohtak. However, it admitted holding a trading account with Mridul Securities in the past years and further admitted that it has undertaken regular trading in the share market through the said account. The Petitioner further admitted that it had pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded back to the AO for passing a fresh order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, after considering the reply dated 16th July, 2022. He states that the AO appears to have initiated the proceedings on the wrong assumption that the Petitioner herein has claimed Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the sale of the said shares, which is incorrect. He further states that the action of the AO is contrary to the directions contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal v. Union of India (2022 SCC Online 543) as the Assessee was not furnished with material relevant for establishing the allegations and the proceedings are barred by limitation. 6. He states that since the shares of TVS Motor are listed on the Stock Exchange a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties and perused the paper book. 10. The Petitioner contends that it has duly purchased the said 32,000 shares from Mridul Securities but there are no relevant or contemporaneous documents evidencing the said purchase, i.e. bank statement etc., placed on record in this petition. As regards the disclosure, if any, of the purchase of the shares, in its earlier ROI, it was clarified by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that since the shares were bought in the same financial year, it is only the transaction with respect to sale of shares which is reported in the ROI. Thus, it is only the sale of shares which is documented by the Assessee in its ROI. 11. The SCN and impugned order states that the entity Mridul Securities is involved in pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....guments of learned counsel for the Petitioners that the notice has been issued beyond limitation has already been rejected by this Court in Touchstone v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25 (III) Delhi and Ors. 2022 SCC Online 3011. 15. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the order dated 2nd September, 2022 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 12683/2022 in the case of Anu Gupta v. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 54 (1). The said case has no application to the facts of the case in hand, as in the said case, the Petitioners' response to the SCN issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act has not been considered by the AO while passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. However, in the present case, the responses of the Peti....