VIJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL vs. UNION OF INDIA

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 179 of 2022 • Vijay Kumar Agrawal S/o R.S. Agrawal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o H.No. 70 Gh, Street No.3, Deepak Nagar Durg - 491001, Chhattisgarh, India ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - 110001, India. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Bhilai, Office at Income Tax Office, 32/32 Bunglows, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, 490001, India Email- Bhilai.dcit1.1@incometax.gov.in 3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, Office At - New C.R. Building Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001, India. Email- Raipur.ccit@incometax.gov.in ---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Kishore Bharduri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri and Mr. Shubham Pandey, Advocates. For the Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Akhand Pratap, Advocate. For Respondents No.2 and 3 :- Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice

Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12 -09-2023 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the IT Act') and the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act issued by Assessing Officer dated 30.03.2022. 2. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that proceeding was initiated after getting information on insight Portal of ITBA uploaded by ADIT/DDIT (Inv.)-2, Raipur in case of Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal, PAN ACHPA1355R and Shri Sharan Bihari Agrawal, whereby the petitioner has informed vide letter F.No. ADIT/Inv.- II/RPR/2020-21 dated 15.03.2021 that the CBI conducted raid at residential premises of Shri Sharan Bihari Agrawal at Delhi in July, 2015. During this raid the CBI found Rs.28 Cr. of black money. On impression that the black money belongs to the petitioner herein, notice was issued under Section 148(a)/A of the IT Act and after affording proper opportunity of hearing order was passed under Section

2 148(A)(d) of the IT Act. He would further submit that the original proceeding initiated against Shri Sharan Bihari Agrawal after due enquiry has been dropped vide order dated 27.04.2023. He would also submit that though the original enquiry, which is the foundation for the issuance of notice and order passed under Section 148(A)(d) of the IT Act against the petitioner, has already been dropped and there is no need to continue the proceedings against the petitioner. He would further submit that there is no satisfaction of the assessing officer with regard to 'reasons to believe'. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 would oppose. Mr. Kumrani would submit that matter has already been sent to the 'Faceless portal' and the petitioner may produce the document dated 27.04.2023 on faceless portal and the final decision shall be taken by the authority. Mr. Akhand Pratap, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would adopt the contentions made by Mr. Kumrani. 4. I have learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and considered the rival submissions made by the parties. 5. The proceedings under Section 148A of the IT Act was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a raid conducted by the CBI at the residential premises of Shri Sharan Bihari Agarawal at Delhi in July, 2015. The original proceeding initiated against Mr. Sharan Bihari Agrawal has been dropped by the department and the same is evident from the order dated 27.04.2023. Without commenting anything on merits, the petitioner would upload these documents in faceless portal and the authorities are directed to consider the order dated 27.04.2023 and pass an appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. The stay granted earlier is vacated.

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

Judge Aadil