KRISHAN MANOHAR BATWARA SON OF LATE SHRI SITA RAM BATWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/12766/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02068530202228 February 2023Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ANOOP KUMAR DHAND2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the proceedings initiated under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 were not without material basis. The seized electronic data, indicating cash transactions of Rs. 55,99,999/- which were not disclosed in the petitioner's return of income for AY 2018-19, constituted material. The Court found that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing, his reply was obtained, and the order was passed thereafter, indicating no violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice. The petitioner's claims that he had not carried out the transactions and his intention to cross-examine were deemed matters to be raised during reassessment proceedings before the Assessing Authority, not before the High Court in a writ petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Krishan Manohar Batwara, challenged an order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Jaipur, under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The proceedings were initiated based on information from a search and seizure operation on the Nirmal Kumar Bardiya Group on 23.11.2021. Electronic data seized indicated cash transactions by the petitioner, specifically giving and taking cash loans totaling Rs. 55,99,999/- during Financial Year 2017-18 (Assessment Year 2018-19). The petitioner's filed return for AY 2018-19 disclosed a total income of Rs. 3,19,960/-, without mentioning these transactions. The petitioner was provided an opportunity of hearing, and his reply was considered before the impugned order was passed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are without material basis and violate the principles of natural justice, specifically regarding the opportunity to cross-examine. Assessee's Contentions: - The proceedings are without any material basis. - The petitioner is not concerned with the alleged transactions and has not provided details. - The petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing and to cross-examine before the order under Section 148A(d) was passed. Revenue's Contentions: - Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(d),Section 148A(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2023/RJJP/003462] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12766/2022 Krishan Manohar Batwara Son Of Late Shri Sita Ram Batwara, Resident Of B-48A Ganesh Marg Bapu Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (4), Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwant Das Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishan Manohar Batwara, Petitioner in person. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Judgment 28/02/2023 Heard. Challenge is made to the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax Officer, WD 1(4), Jaipur under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’). Petitioner in person would submit that the proceedings which have been initiated against him are without any material basis. He is not concerned with the alleged transactions. He has not provided details. He would also submit that he was entitled to opportunity of hearing and to cross-examine before passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961. Notice issued on 23.03.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961 reveals that the proceedings were drawn on the basis of information received pursuant to search and seizure carried out

[2023/RJJP/003462] (2 of 2) [CW-12766/2022] in the case of one Nirmal Kumar Bardiya Group on 23.11.2021, whereby, electronic data comprising excel sheets in pen drives were seized relating to the cash transaction said to be done by the petitioner. The material which has been collected shows that the petitioner had given and taken cash loan of Rs.55,99,999/- during the Financial Year 2017-18 relevant to Assessment Year 2018-19. Having found that in the return of income filed on 27.10.2018 for the Assessment Year 2018-19, a total income of Rs.3,19,960/- was disclosed and the aforesaid transaction was not disclosed, proceedings have been initiated. Petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing by giving a notice, his reply was obtained and, thereafter, the order has been passed. Therefore, there does not appear to be a violation of a statutory provision or violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner’s case that he had not carried out any such transaction and he intends to cross-examine are all matters which may be raised during reassessment proceedings before the concerned Assessing Authority and not before this Court. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT-1

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →