DAISY DISTRIBUTORS PVT.LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7 (1) NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17326/2022HC DelhiDLHC01047831202220 November 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Assessing Officer was not precluded from initiating proceedings under Section 148A of the Act. The crucial fact was that the AO of the assessee was not handed over any books of accounts or material by the AO of the searched person (Sh. Joginder Pal Gupta). This failure to satisfy the necessary threshold condition meant that the AO of the assessee could not initiate proceedings under Section 153C of the Act. Consequently, the AO was entitled to proceed under Section 148A on the basis of information available on the Insight portal, which indicated that the petitioner's income for AY 2015-16 had escaped assessment. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. and its own prior decision in ITA 401/2022, which held that Section 153C does not preclude recourse to Section 147/148 when the conditions for Section 153C are not met. The petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Daisy Distributors Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) and a notice dated 24.07.2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) had issued a notice on 20.05.2022 under Section 148A(b) for Assessment Year 2015-16, citing information from the Insight portal indicating the petitioner was a beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by Sh. Joginder Pal Gupta. The information suggested the petitioner received ₹3,13,00,000/- from entities controlled by Sh. Joginder Pal Gupta during FY 2014-15. The petitioner responded, disputing certain amounts and claiming repayment of advances, and also challenged the AO's jurisdiction, arguing that proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to proceed under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information unearthed during search proceedings under Section 132 of the Act concerning another person. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the provisions of Section 153C of the Act override Sections 147/148. Therefore, any information obtained from search proceedings under Section 132 of the Act could only form the basis of assessment under Section 153C, not under Section 147/148. Revenue's contention: The revenue implicitly contended that the AO had the jurisdiction to proceed under Section 148A, as the conditions for Section 153C were not met. The judgment does not explicitly record separate arguments for the revenue on this specific point, but the dismissal of the petition indicates acceptance of the AO's chosen path.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 147,Section 153C,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 17326/2022

Page 1 of 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Judgment delivered on: 20.11.2024 + W.P.(C) 17326/2022 DAISY DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.

..... Appellant versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1) NEW DELHI

..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr Kapil Goel and Mr Sandeep Goel, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON’BLE MS JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 24.07.2022 (hereafter the impugned order) passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) as well as a notice dated 24.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 2. The Assessing Officer had issued a notice dated 20.05.2022 under Section 148(A)(b) of the Act for Assessment Year (AY) 2015- 16, inter alia, stating that information was received through insight portal from the Investigation Wing to the effect that the petitioner was a beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by one Sh. Joginder Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 17326/2022

Page 2 of 5

Pal Gupta (DAG Group). The relevant extract of the said notice is set out below: “GIST OF INFORMATION: In this case information was received through Insight portal dated: 25.03.2021 from the office of Investigation Wing, Delhi, wherein it has been stated that during search and seizure operation conducted on Sh Joginder Pal Gupta on 23.12.2019 in the case of DAG group of Sh Joginder Pal Gupta. During the investigation it was established that he is an entry provider who controlled several shell companies and provided accomodation entry to beneficiaries. M/s Daisy Distributors Pvt Ltd is one such beneficiary which received Rs 3,13,00,000/- from entities (M/s Anupam Buildmart Pvt Ltd, Nicky Marmo Ltd, Bell Indus Fibercon Pvt Ltd, Bij Buildcon Pvt Ltd, RSKM Traders Pvt Ltd and Olwin Garments Pvt Ltd) controlled & managed by Sh Joginder Pal Gupta during F.Y. 2014-15 which remained unverified. 1. You are requested to submit your reply with documentary evidences in compliance to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred supra, within 15 days from the date of issuance of this letter. The reply is to be submitted electronically in e- proceedings facility through your account in e-filling portal of Income Tax Department. 2. Your reply, if any, will be considered before passing order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, if deemed fit.” 3. The said notice also set out the information details as available on the insight portal. A tabular statement briefly setting out the entries as forwarded to the petitioner along with the said notice is set out below:

Information Details Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 17326/2022

Page 3 of 5

S. No . Source PAN Source PAN Name Informatio n FY Informatio n Type Informatio n Value Informatio n Date Remarks 1 AAFCA3263 M Anupam Buildma rt Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 Fictitious Loan 9000000

Beneficiar y 2 AAACN3607 P Nicky Marmo Ltd. 2014-15 Fictitious Loan 5000000

Beneficiar y 3 AAACB2764 K Bell Indus Fibreco m Pvt Ltd. 2014-15 Fictitious Loan 3000000

Beneficiar y 4 AAECB6648 Q Bij Buildcon Pvt Ltd 2014-15 Fictitious Loan 3000000

Beneficiar y 5 AAACE0766 E RSKM Traders Pvt Ltd 2014-15 Fictitious Loan 2500000

Beneficiar y 6 AAFCA3263 M Anupam Buildma rt Pvt Ltd 2014-15 Fictitious Loan 2800000

Beneficiar y 7 AADCA4442 Q Olwin Garment s Pvt Ltd 2014-15 Fictitious Loan 5000000

Beneficiar y 4. The petitioner responded to the said notice raising several objections including that the information reflecting an amount of ₹90,00,000/- as fictitious loan transaction with M/s Anupam Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. was incorrect as no loan was taken from the said entity. The petitioner also stated that the total amount of the transactions, which is alleged to have escaped assessment, was also incorrect. Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 17326/2022

Page 4 of 5

5.

The petitioner acknowledged that it had received advances but claimed that it had repaid the same and therefore, there was no credit outstanding at the end of the financial year 2014-15. The petitioner also forwarded copies of the ledger accounts of various entities. In addition, the petitioner claimed that the assumption of the jurisdiction was invalid. The petitioner claimed that since the proceedings were based on information collected during the search of a person other than the petitioner, the only recourse available to the Assessing Officer (AO) was to proceed under Section 153C of the Act. 6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined its arguments to the question of jurisdiction of the AO to proceed under Section 147/148 of the Act in respect of material/information unearthed in search proceedings under Section 132 of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the assessment could be opened only under Section 153C of the Act. 7. The arguments in the present petition were heard along with ITA 401/2022 captioned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Naveen Kumar Gupta as a similar issue was raised in the said appeal as well. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the provisions of Section 153C of the Act override the provisions of Section 147/148 of the Act and thus, any information obtained by the AO, which is based on the material found during the search conducted under Section 132 of the Act or requisition made under Section 132A of the Act, could only form the basis of assessment under Section 153C of the Act and not under Section 147/148 of the Act. Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 17326/2022

Page 5 of 5

8.

It is not disputed that in the present case, the AO was not handed over any books of accounts or material by the AO of the searched person (Sh. Joginder Pal Gupta of DAG Group). Thus, the necessary threshold condition for the AO of the Assessee, initiating the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act was not satisfied. Thus, in any event the AO was not precluded from initiating proceedings under Section 148A of the Act on the basis of the information available on the insight portal, which is suggestive of the fact that the petitioner’s income for AY 2015- 16 had escaped assessment. 9. The present case is covered squarely by the decision of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.: (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) as the jurisdictional condition for the AO of the Assessee to assume jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act was not satisfied 10. The question whether the provisions of Section 153C of the Act precludes recourse to reopening assessments under Section 147/148 of the Act, on the basis of information found during the search conducted under Section 132 or requisition made under Section 132A of Act in respect of another person, is also covered against the petitioner by the decision of this Court in ITA 401/2022. 11. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 20, 2024/RK Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →