In a recent case, the Delhi High Court set aside the reassessment order passed without considering the reply of the assessee.
Mr Shailendera Singh, senior standing counsel, appeared on behalf of the respondents/revenue. Mr Singh appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Riya Gangwani, the petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act.
It was evident that the petitioner was served with two (2) notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act and he had filed replies vis-a-vis both notices. The principal allegation against the petitioner is that it has registered fictitious transactions involving the purchase of shares.
It was alleged that the petitioner is a beneficiary of an accommodation entry. The value fixed by the Assessing Office (AO) qua these transactions is Rs.27,16,180/-.
It was important to note that via the second notice dated 20.03.2023 issued to the petitioner, the AO had sought copies of the bank statement, as well as the D-MAT account concerning Financial Year (FY) 2018-19 [AY 2019-20]. The petitioner had furnished a copy of the bank statement and the D-MAT account.
It was evident that the bank statement and the D-MAT for the concerned AY have not been noticed. set aside the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 passed under Section 148 A(d), and the consequent notice of even date, i.e., 24.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act.
While allowing the appeal, the division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has directed the AO to pass a fresh order, albeit after taking into account the reply filed by the petitioner.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
