TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 2051
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel for UOI/R-3 with Ms. Shayna Das Pattanayak and Ms. Riddhi Jain, Advocates. ORDER 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 18.06.2026, issued by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessing Officer') under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') for Assessment Year (AY) 2024-25. 2. Mr. Jolly, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned notice is fundamentally void and without jurisdiction and the same has been issued in colourable exercise of purported powers available with the AO. 3. Inviting Court's attention towards the facts of the case, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that on 12.05....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r-viam order dated 31.10.2025, accepted petitioner's plea and directed the AO to refund the amount of Rs.17,66,50,000/- after adjusting the total tax liability. 7. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in the meantime, scrutiny assessment of the Director of the petitioner company, namely, Ashish Kapoor was also completed by way of order dated 27.03.2026 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961, during which not only was a questionnaire issued to him but a notice also came to be issued to the petitioner company under Section 133(6) of the Act of 1961 and after being satisfied, the very same AO (Mr. Chandan Kumar Srivastav), who has issued the impugned notice, unequivocally agreed with the plea of the assessee-Ashish Kapoor that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment proceedings stricto-sensu shall not apply to the proceedings in hands. 12. He argued that maybe the AO has accepted the fact that the subject amount belongs to the petitioner but such fact by itself is not conclusive, because whether the same has resulted in or correctly offered as income by the assessee or whether the petitioner's assertion regarding cash sale is factually correct or not is a matter of scrutiny and within the domain of the AO. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. We are not oblivious of the legal position that the proceedings in question relate to Assessment Year 2024-2025, during which, in furtherance of the search, a notice under Section 153C was not required and the AO could directly issue no....