NADEEM KHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 46(4) CIVIC CENTRE , MINTO ROAD NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/9586/2024HC DelhiDLHC01040889202407 May 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the review petition. Regarding the first issue, the Court reiterated that the original writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the issue of the JAO's jurisdiction to issue a Section 148 notice under the faceless scheme was covered by the High Court's decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 25 (3) New Delhi. The Court noted that the notice in the writ petition was issued on July 16, 2024, limited to this jurisdictional question. Concerning the other two issues, the Court reproduced paragraphs from its earlier order dated July 16, 2024, which had already considered and rejected these contentions. The Court found that withdrawals of INR 1,87,95,000/- from the petitioner's HDFC bank account met the threshold of INR 50,00,000/- under Section 149(1)(b), and the Explanation to Section 149(1)(b) alludes to bank deposits as assets. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction could not be assailed on this ground. The Court also found no merit in the contention of a 'roving enquiry', stating that the AO's opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence was preceded by a prima facie opinion duly recorded. As the petitioner had not availed any remedy against the July 16, 2024 order and no grounds for review were found, the review petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nadeem Khan, filed a review petition seeking to review an order dated May 7, 2025, which had dismissed his writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the issue raised was covered by a previous High Court decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 25 (3) New Delhi. The original writ petition, filed on July 16, 2024, was limited to the question of whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, under the faceless assessment scheme, arguing only the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) could issue such a notice. The petitioner also contended that there was insufficient material to indicate escaped income exceeding ₹50 lakhs and that the Assessing Officer (AO) was proposing a 'roving enquiry'.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, under the faceless assessment scheme, or if only the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) could issue such a notice (Section 148). Assessee's Contention: The JAO lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148; only the FAO could do so under the faceless scheme. Revenue's Contention: Not explicitly recorded, but the High Court's prior decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 25 (3) New Delhi was relied upon to dismiss the petition. 2. Whether there was sufficient material to indicate that income which had escaped assessment, represented by assets, exceeded ₹50 lakhs (Section 149(1)(b)). Assessee's Contention: Not enough material to indicate escaped income exceeding ₹50 lakhs. Revenue's Contention: Not explicitly recorded. 3. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was proposing to undertake a 'roving enquiry' (Section 148A(d)). Assessee's Contention: The AO was proposing a 'roving enquiry'. Revenue's Contention: Not explicitly recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9586/2024 NADEEM KHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr Wahaj Ahmad Khan, Advocate. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 46(4) CIVIC CENTRE , MINTO ROAD NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr Siddhartha Sinha, SSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R % 04.07.2025 CM APPL. 38412/2025

1.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

The application is disposed of. REVIEW PET. 354/2025

3.

The petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking review of the order dated 07.05.2025 whereby the above-captioned petition was dismissed on the ground that the issue raised was covered by the decision of this court in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 25 (3) New Delhi, 2024:DHC:8330-DB.

4.

It is not disputed that the notice in the present petition was issued on 16.07.2024 limited to the question whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [JAO] had the jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. It was the petitioner’s case that under the faceless scheme of assessment, a notice under Section 148 of the Act could be issued only by the Faceless Assessment Officer [FAO]. Undisputedly, the said issue is covered by the decision of this court in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 25 (3) New Delhi (supra).

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that it had raised two other issues which have not been considered.

6.

It is noted that the notice in the present petition was issued on 16.07.2024 on the singular issue regarding jurisdiction of the JAO to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The other two questions, which are now sought to be reiterated are whether there was material to indicate that income that had escaped assessment represented by assets exceeded ₹50 lakhs; and whether the Assessing Officer was proposing to undertake a roving enquiry. These issues were considered and rejected by the order dated 16.07.2024. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of the said order are reproduced below:

“3. We, however, find that the Section 148A(b) notice had referred to the following transactions of deposits and withdrawals on the basis of which the Assessing Officer [“AO”] came to the conclusion that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. That chart is reproduced hereinbelow: Information Code Information Description Source Count Amount description Amount (Rs.) SFT- 003(D) Cash deposits (including through HDFC Bank Limited 1 Aggregate gross amount received 12,51,500/- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

bearer’s Cheque in current account from person in cash SFT- 014(C) Cash deposits (in current account) during the period 09th November, 2016 to 30th December, 2016 HDFC Bank Limited 1 Aggregate gross amount credited to the account in cash from 09th day of Nov 2016 to 30th day of Dec 2016 2/- SFT- 003(W) Cash withdrawals (including through bearer’s Cheque in current account HDFC Bank Limited 1 Aggregate gross amount received from person in cash 1,87,95,000/-

4.

As is manifest from the above, an amount of INR 1,87,95,000/- was withdrawn from the HDFC bank account maintained by the writ petitioner. The said amount thus This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

qualifies the threshold of INR 50,00,000/- which stands embodied in Section 149(1)(b) of the Act.

5.

We note that the Explanation appended to Section 149(1)(b) while seeking to define the word “asset” also alludes to deposits in bank accounts. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the assumption of jurisdiction cannot be assailed on the aforesaid ground.

6.

We also find no merit in the contention of learned counsel who had sought to urge that a reading of Section 148A(d) order would seem to indicate that the AO was proposing to undertake a ‘roving enquiry’. An ex facie reading of the aforesaid order would indicate that the opportunity accorded to the petitioner to produce supporting documentary evidence was preceded by the AO forming its prima facie opinion with respect to statement of income and which stands duly recorded. We consequently find no merit in the challenge raised on this score.”

7.

The review petitioner has not availed of any remedy in respect of the order dated 16.07.2024. 8. In view of the above, we find no ground to review the order dated 07.05.2025. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J JULY 4, 2025/tr Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →