Padam Chand Jain Huf Through Karta Sailesh Jain vs. Prinicpal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH ON THE 10th OF MAY, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 9775 of 2023 BETWEEN:- PADAM CHAND JAIN HUF THROUGH KARTA SAILESH JAIN S/O LATE SHRI PADAM CHAND JAIN, AGE - 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O M/S BALLABH CHAND PETROL PUMP, AB ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SUNIL KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE ) AND 1. PRINICPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYKAR BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, ROOM NO. 101, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN (RAJASTHAN) 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX D E PA R T M E N T, ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) 4. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, PALI RAJASTHAN (RAJASTHAN) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI HARSHWARDHAN TOPRE -ADVOCATE ) This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA passed the following: ORDER 1 Petitioner, an assessee with Permanent Account Number (PAN) AAOHP9851J allotted to him in the year 2016 for the reasons stated in the communication dated 13.05.2016, has approached this Court taking exception to the notice (Annexure P/1) dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the context of the Assessment Year 2016-17 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the income of the petitioner HUF for the Assessment Year 2016-17 be not made subject matter of re-assessment, as well as the order dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P/2) passed under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, in pursuance to the notice dated 16.03.2023 (Annexure P/3) issued under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner appears to have filed reply to the show cause notice on 18.03.2023. Upon consideration of the reply so furnished, the Assessing Officer has passed the order overruling the objection raised against initiation of re-assessment proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner while taking exception to the impugned notice and order inter alia submits that subsequent to allotment of new PAN Card in the year 2016 it has all along been filing returns of the income for the succeeding assessment years including 2016-17 with new PAN Card number as mentioned above. The amount allegedly deposited in the bank A/c No. 888020100000495 maintained by the petitioner has been well reflected in the return filed for the assessment year 2016-17 and assessed. Therefore, re- assessment proceedings are unwarranted. Shri Topre, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, on advance notice, referred to para 6 of the impugned order and contended that the Assessing Officer has prima facie formed an opinion upon the facts on 2 surface to justify initiation of re-assessment proceedings to assess the income escaped assessment. He submits that though the PAN Card number of petitioner HUF was changed in the year 2016 but no change was made in that behalf in the aforementioned bank account by the petitioner or by the bank as the case may be. That apart, petitioner HUF is shown to be at Delhi, however the account of the petitioner is in Shivpuri. Besides, the petitioner HUF is said to be in the name of Padam Chand Jain HUF whereas account is maintained in the name of Ballabh Chand. Under such circumstances, no exception can be taken to the formation of the opinion for re-assessment proceedings as unless the amount found deposited in the bank account is explained to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with complete details of the identification of the petitioner and other requisite information, the proceedings for re-assessment cannot be faulted. Up o n hearing counsel for the parties, this Court refrains from commenting upon the rival contentions which touched the merits of the case, however, we are of the view that there is no jurisdictional error on the part of the Assessing Officer while he passed the impugned order under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act. Nevertheless, it is apposite to observe that the order passed under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act is not the substitute of the order of assessment if any to be passed by the Assessing Officer during the course of the re-assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer is statutorily obliged to look into the entire material placed before him before he reaches the conclusion that the income found has escaped assessment warranting re-assessment and tax thereupon. Consequently, we though decline to interfere but direct the Assessing 3 (ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE Officer to extend liberty to the petitioner to file complete documents with reference to and in context of the amount found deposited in the bank account of the petitioner mentioned above and such other documents as he may be advised to file. The Assessing Officer is hereby directed to process re- assessment with due advertence to the record placed before him, pursuant to the notice under Sec.148 of Income Tax Act dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P/1). With the aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (and)

4 ANAND SHRIVASTAVA 2023.05.11 12:55:48 +05'30'