A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently dismissed a review petition belatedly filed against income tax proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The petitioner, represented by Rachna Agrawal, sought condonation of a 24-day delay in filing the review petition and emphasized the necessity of addressing the validity of certain notices issued by the Income Tax Department.
The petitioner claimed that these notices, specifically the one dated March 31, 2019, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice dated November 27, 2019, issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, were still in effect despite the assessment/reassessment order accepting the original return.
The Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju clarified that the purpose of their order was to alleviate any misunderstandings on the part of the petitioner. The notices in question were deemed to have been resolved by the assessment/reassessment order, which accepted the petitioner’s original return. Additionally, the court emphasized that the relief sought by a litigant cannot be grounds for review.
The review petitioner’s argument hinged on an admission made by the respondents, indicating that they had wrongly concluded that the petitioner had not filed their income tax return for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The petitioner contended that their grievance was not fully addressed simply because the assessment order had accepted their return.
The court, however, highlighted that the triggering factor for the notices under Section 148 of the Act was information suggesting that the petitioner was a “non-filer” who had made cash deposits of Rs. 14,00,000 with HDFC Bank Ltd. and Karnataka Bank Ltd. during the Financial Year 2011-12 (AY 2012-13). While the petitioner had indeed filed a return, the court noted that the Assessing Officer proceeded with further investigation based on the cash deposits.
Having examined the case, the court concluded that the impugned notices were not invalid, as the Assessing Officer had reasonable grounds for initiating the proceedings.
The court pointed out that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, and it upheld the previous judgment. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
