The division bench of Delhi High Court consisting Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju issued the notice to the respondent side on the petition filed by the petitioner against the issue of notice under section 148A(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 when the scrutiny assessment was going on.
The bench pointed out that the main issue with the case is the initiation of the reassessment procedures while the scrutiny assessment processes were still going on.
The primary complaint raised against the petitioner, Disha Infra Services Pvt. Ltd., was that it received fake invoices worth Rs. 18,52,66,420 from an entity going by the name of One Point One Solutions Ltd. (OPO). According to the allegations, the petitioner submitted false claims for input tax credit using the aforementioned fake invoices.
Nonetheless, the petitioner claimed that it had paid OPO for outbound call centre services it had provided. Additionally, submitted a copy of the agreement together with an addendum, invoices, and TDS certificates to support its claim that the payments were made in exchange for legitimate services rendered by OPO.
Sarin, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having been subjected to complete scrutiny, the reassessment proceedings were uncalled for.
Conversely, Vipul Agrawal, senior standing counsel, appeared for respondents/revenue, raised several objections including the fact that challenge is laid to the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. Thus contended that the petitioner has approached the court after much delay.
According to the respondent counsel, the reassessment procedure should not be ceased because it was started inside a three-year period.
The bench observed that the petitioner approached the court after some delay. Also, the assessment order has not been passed yet.
According to the court, it requires further detailed deliberation however it directed the Income Tax authorities to continue with the assessment proceedings.
If any order is passed which is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to till further directions of the court, stated the bench.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
