The Delhi High Court issued the notice for re-examination since the reassessment was time-barred.
The principal allegation levelled against Mukesh Goel, the petitioner is, that he is a beneficiary of accommodation entry provided by one, Mr Sanjay Jain via three entities, going by the name Girdhari Lal Mehta Construction Pvt. Ltd., Inderjit Mehta Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and BCC Cement Pvt. Ltd.
The order dated 15.04.2023 was passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reference to the said entities is also made in the notice of even date i.e., 15.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act. The respondents/revenue has pegged the value of the accommodation entry at Rs.48,62,752/.
Mr Abhishek Garg, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has, on merits, denied having entered into any transaction with the aforementioned entities. It was contended that the petitioner has communicated in his reply dated 10.04.2023, filed in response to the notice dated 28.03.2023 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, that he had made purchases worth Rs.15,73,056/- only from a proprietorship concern, going by the name Jain Cement Udyog.
A two-judge bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are time-barred and therefore the provisions of Section 149(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, and the third proviso appended.
The Court issued notice to the respondent since the matter requires examination and held that “the Assessing Officer will have the liberty to continue with the reassessment proceedings. However, if an order is passed which is adverse to the interests of the petitioner/assessee, the same shall not be given effect to, till further directions of the Court.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
