TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....total income of Rs.1,94,98,840/-. 3. The return of income was taken up for scrutiny and a notice dated 03.01.2020 was issued, specifically inquiring into the investment in property. The petitioner furnished the details sought vide replies dated 20.01.2020 and 04.11.2020. 4. Eventually, the assessment order came to be passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act on 25.01.2021. Thereafter, the impugned Show Cause Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act came to be issued on 24.03.2022 by the respondent, along with details of information alleging that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The said show cause notice granted time up to 31.03.2022 to the petitioner to file a response. 5. The petitioner filed a response on 31.03.2022 explaining, why no income had escaped assessment and why the proceedings ought to be dropped. 6. The respondent disposed of the objections filed by the petitioner vide the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 07.04.2022. The respondent thereafter issued the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act on 07.04.2022. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is urged that the present writ petition may be allowed. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT - DEPARTMENT : 9. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan G. Sanghani, appearing on behalf of the respondent - Revenue has submitted that as per the information received by the Revenue, Gitanjali Infratech Ltd., was indulging in a transfer of huge amounts abroad and the beneficiary was Mr. Mehul Choksi, and the petitioner had entered into land deal at Borivali and Santacruz Electronics Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ), Mumbai with Gitanjali Infratech Ltd. It was reported that the petitioner had transferred an amount of Rs. 29,90,000/- to Gitanjali Infratech during Financial Year 2017-18. However, upon examination of the facts of the case, it was observed that the petitioner had transacted with M/s. Gitanjali Infratech, which had subsequently transferred an amount of Rs. 29,90,00,000/- to Shri Mehul Chokshi. In view of the above, a finding was recorded that income chargeable to tax, in the form of alleged bogus transactions, had escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year to the extent of Rs. 29,90,00,000/-. Therefore, after obtaining ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....une of Rs. 29,90,000/-. 14. The petitioner had specifically produced that the development agreement which was executed on a proper stamp paper and was registered with Sub-Registrar, Borivali, Mumbai and the entire consideration of Rs. 29,90,000/- was paid through banking channels, either paid by Account Payee Cheques or RTGS. Accordingly, the development rights were duly supported by the documentary evidence in the scrutiny and in the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act, which were disclosed in the balance sheet of the company and were also disclosed in the regular assessment. Thus, in the scrutiny proceedings, the petitioner highlighted the amount of loan received from Rakesh Girdharlal Gajera and payments made to Gitanjali Infratech Ltd., for acquiring these development rights of the land at Borivali, Mumbai. 15. Thus, the petitioner had clarified that the amount was an investment made by the company and as there was no question of escapement of Rs. 29,90,00,000/- as income does not arise. 16. Despite the aforesaid disclosure supported by the documentary evidence, in the impugned order under clause Section 148A(d) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04.2023, did not require the assessee to explain the source of the source of funds other than share capital money, share capital, share premium or any amount of such nature. Thus, the enlargement of the assessee's onus to explain the source of the source of sums credited as unsecured loans necessitated the amendment to Section 68 of the Act to expressly provide for the same. Accordingly, the proviso to Section 68 of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2022, reads as under: "Provided that where the sum so credited consists of loan or borrowing or any such amount, by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless,- (a) the person in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such assessee also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided further that where the assessee is a company, (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested) and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share cap....