×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various High Courts of India
These are the latest case laws decided by various High Courts of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
31-11-2018, JINDAL METAL, Section 124(1)(b), 271F, 44AB, HIGH COURT OF DELHI
1. The writ petitioner challenges a revisional order dated 22.05.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (“CIT” hereafter) which upheld the reassessment order of the Assessment Officer (AO) made for the assessment year (AY) 2008-09.
2. The petitioner, an individual tax payer, claims to reside at C-309, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018. From the said address, he submits that he has been filing his income tax returns since 1996 onwards in accordance with Section 124(1)(b) of the Act. This address falls within the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer Ward - 26(4) from where he was issued notice dated 28.02.2003 under Section 271F for AY 2000-01 followed by the penalty order dated 12.03.2003. It is not in dispute that on 09.05.1999, he opened a proprietorship concern by the name of Jindal Metal Co. at 5870/37, First Floor, Basti Harphool Singh, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi-110006 which was registered with the sales tax department at Delhi. The Petitioner filed his income tax return for the AY 2008-09 with ward 26(4) against PAN
No.AEEPJ7166A on 29.09.2008. Along with the return, he filed an audit report in Form 3CB as required under Section 44AB of the Act fully disclosing all the details relating to sale/purchase, expenses, etc. On 26.04.2010, search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act was carried out of M/s Rakesh Gupta, Vishesh Gupta, Navneet Jain & Vaibhav Jain (hereafter “Rakesh Gupta & Ors.”). The search assessments in accordance with provisions of the Act (Section 153A etc) were pursued by the Revenue, against Rakesh Gupta & Ors. In the meanwhile, claiming that the materials gathered and the statements made in the course of search were relevant, the Revenue sought to re-open the petitioner’s assessment for AY 2008-09. The Additional CIT approved this move, on 23.03.2015. It is alleged that on the same day, the AO issued a notice under Section 148 in the name of Jindal Metal Co. This could not be served as the shop was closed on 24/25 and 26.03.2015. It is alleged that one Rajesh Kumar, theprocess server put a note dated 24.03.2015 on the file stating therein that on enquiry it was found that the person has sold this shop long time ago. But he affixed the notice under Section 148 on 26.03.2015 which as per the affixture report was witnessed by one Anil Kumar, Inspector of Income Tax.
3. On 05.10.2015, the AO issued notice under Section 142 (1) to the petitioner which was not responded to in the course of reassessment proceedings. Again, on 04.01.2016, a notice of hearing and final assessment was sought to be served; due to the petitioner’s absence, it was affixed at the premises; in these circumstances, the AO completed the reassessment on 11.01.2016, at `12,52,390/- after allowing credit of prepaidtaxes, if any, and charged interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of Income Tax Act as per law. Penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (b) & 271 (1) (c) of the Act too were initiated.
4. The petitioner apparently did not respond; however, he approached the CIT under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, seeking revision of the reassessment order. In the revision petition, it was averred as follows:
“The petitioner received on 28/01/2016 an assessment order passed under section 143(3)/147 of the I T Act, 1961 on 11-01- 2016 accompanied by a notice of demand of date for Rs 785588.00 from the ITO, Ward-63(3), New Delhi in the case of M/s Jindal Metal Co. in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2008-09.
As it was not addressed to the petitioner and did not emanate from his jurisdictional Assessing Officer, namely, ITO, Ward-26( 4), New Delhi the petitioner took these to have been miss-sentand didn't bother much about it.
On 21-12-2016 the petitioner received yet another assessment order passed under section 143(3)/14 7 of the I T Act, 1961 accompanied by another notice of demand of date for Rs.589960.00again from the ITO, Ward-63(3), New Delhi in the case of M/s Jindal Metal Co. in the status of firm for Assessment Year 2009-10. Alarmed by the recurrence the petitioner sought inspection of the assessment records of the Firm M/s Jindal Metal Co, and came to know that the learned AO, ITO, Ward-63(3), New Delhi had acted on receipt of some information from ACIT, Central Circle 10, New Delhi about some alleged accommodation bills having been issued by Shri Rakesh Gupta, Vinesh Gupta, Navneet Jain, Vaibhav Jain to various traders including one M/s Jindal Metal Co. which have culminated in these assessments. Since the petitioner is also doing business under the trade name M/s Jindal Metal Co. and the address of the Firm assessed by the