M AND M GEMS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Facts

The petitioner, M and M Gems, filed its return for assessment year 2018-19. The Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 6(2), Jaipur, issued a notice on March 11, 2022, regarding transactions in the petitioner's Indusind Bank account. The petitioner provided information and documents on March 14, 2022. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued on March 17, 2022. The petitioner responded on March 23, 2022. The ITO then passed an order dated March 31, 2022, under Section 148A(d) of the Act, which is under challenge. The present petition was filed seeking to quash this order.

Held

The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was non-speaking and was passed in violation of the said provision. The Court observed that the petitioner's reply was brushed aside by merely stating that it was not satisfactory, without proper consideration. The Tribunal relied on its own decision in R.K. Buildcreations Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer [{2024} 462 ITR 478 (Raj)]. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent (ITO) to proceed with the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in accordance with law. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is non-speaking and in violation of the said provision and departmental guidelines dated 01.08.2022? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is non-speaking and violates Section 148A of the Act and the departmental guidelines. They relied on the decision in R.K. Buildcreations Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer [{2024} 462 ITR 478 (Raj)] to support their claim that the order was passed in violation of Section 148A and the guidelines. Revenue's contention: The respondent defended the impugned order but was unable to distinguish the present case from the precedent cited by the petitioner.