2023 (11) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8/- which, according to the respondents/revenue, stood credited in the bank accounts maintained with HDFC Bank and DCB Bank in the period in issue, i.e., Financial Year (FY) 2014-15 (AY 2015-16). 4. The record shows that this allegation was embedded in the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Act, i.e., under the old regime, which obtained prior to the Finance Act 2021 [in short, "F.A. 2021"] being in force. 5. Concededly, F.A. 2021 was brought into force from 01.04.2021. The respondents/revenue claim that the aforementioned notice dated 31.03.2021 was issued to the petitioner on 02.04.2021. There is some significance to these dates and events, to which we will make a reference in the latter part of the judgment. 6. Continuing with the narrative, the petitioner was issued thereafter a notice dated 11.01.2022 under Section 142(1) of the Act. This was followed by a show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order dated 12.03.2022 being served on the petitioner. Paragraph 5 of the said show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order would show that a proposal to add Rs. 50,94,24,738/- to the income of the petitioner (based on the allegations whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"]. A hard copy of the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the CIT(A) has been placed before us. A copy of the same has also been furnished to Mr Kunal Sharma, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue. 11. The petitioner was further served with a notice dated 31.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. A bare perusal of the said notice shows that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were identical to what was contained in the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act, albeit under the old regime. For convenience, the relevant part of the notice dated 31.05.2022 is extracted hereafter: "3. In this regard, in compliance with the subject order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, you are hereby provided with the information and material relied upon by this office for issue of the show cause notice as above. The details of which are provided as under: - "1. In this case, information has been received from Dy. Commissioner of income Tax that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of entry provider Shri Rajnish Garg it is noticed th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eply of the assessee is not accepted and hereby, rejected. As per the information available, the assessee through entry provider Shri Rajnish Garg has credited sum of Rs. 50,94,24,738/- in various bank accounts maintained in HDFC Bank and DCB Bank during the FY 2014-15. No documentary evidence have been submitted to establish the source of sum deposited in these accounts in which assessee is the benefeciary. In this case, information available suggests that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset (credits in bank accounts), has escaped assessment which is more than fifty lacs." 14. It is against this backdrop that the petitioner has approached this court via the instant writ petition. 15. Mr Ruchesh Sinha, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, has broadly made the following submissions: (i) Firstly, the reassessment proceedings triggered via notice dated 31.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act were flawed as there was no fresh material available with the AO. The AO having passed an order dated 22.03.2022 based on the very same allegation; this was a case of change of opinion. (ii) Secondly, the AO even in the second round....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded, as alluded to in the impugned order dated 19.07.2022, was that the petitioner had failed to provide any evidence to establish that the amounts found in the accounts maintained with HDFC Bank and DCB Bank in the FY 2014-15 did not belong to him, i.e., he was not the beneficiary. 24. As noted above while narrating the events, the petitioner had taken an emphatic stand that the bank accounts adverted to by the AO did not belong to him. 25. The petitioner instead had furnished the statement of accounts of the two banks, i.e., ICICI Bank and Jammu and Kashmir Bank which were maintained by him. 26. Thus, without any actionable material, the AO embarked on a journey to reopen, in a sense, a closed assessment which had reached culmination via order dated 22.03.2022, at least at the point in time when notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued. 27. What has compounded, in our view, at least for the moment, the problem of the respondents/revenue is the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the CIT(A). The following paragraph demonstrates that the assessment order dated 22.03.2022 had, in fact, made no addition to the declared income of the petitioner. As noticed hereinabo....