RENU GOEL vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5703/2023HC DelhiDLHC01016442202317 January 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment was based on an incorrect factual premise and therefore could not be sustained. The Court noted that the bank account in question, with credits of INR 6,61,37,910/-, was certified by ICICI Bank to belong to M/s. Rashika Polytex, proprietor Sh. Vipul Goel, and that the petitioner, Ms. Renu Goel, was not associated with it. Crucially, the revenue, in its counter affidavit, admitted that the order under Section 148A(d) erroneously referred to the account of M/s. Rashika Polytex instead of the correct account of M/s. Vipul Udyog, which belonged to Renu Goel. Consequently, the Court found the assumption of jurisdiction to be flawed. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order under Section 148A(d) dated 29 July 2022 and the consequential notice under Section 148 dated 29 July 2022 were quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Renu Goel, challenged a reassessment action initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The reassessment was based on an amount of INR 6,61,37,910/- credited to ICICI Bank Account No. 036705500712, which the revenue believed was maintained by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the account belonged to Mr. Vipul Goel. The Assessing Officer, in the order under Section 148A(d), noted that while the bank certified the account belonged to M/s. Rashika Polytex, proprietor Sh. Vipul Goel, and that Ms. Renu Goel was not part of it, the account was not declared by Sh. Vipul Goel. The revenue later admitted in its counter affidavit that the order under Section 148A(d) erroneously referred to M/s. Rashika Polytex, Prop. Sh. Vipul Goel, instead of M/s. Vipul Udyog, Prop. Renu Goel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment action initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-17 is valid, given that the basis for assumption of jurisdiction was an incorrect bank account. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the entire reassessment action was based on a factual error, as the bank account in question did not belong to her but to Mr. Vipul Goel. This was supported by a certificate from ICICI Bank and later admitted by the revenue. Revenue's Contention: Initially, the revenue proceeded on the belief that the account belonged to the assessee. However, in the counter affidavit, the revenue conceded that the detail related to M/s. Rashika Polytex, Prop. Sh. Vipul Goel, was erroneously put in, instead of M/s. Vipul Udyog, Prop. Renu Goel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 5703/2023

RENU GOEL

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Adv.

versus

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC with Ms. Zehra Khan and Mr. Vikramaditya, JSCs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R %

17.01.2025 1. The writ petitioner impugns the reassessment action which has been initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 19611 and pertaining to Assessment Year2 2016-17. 2. The solitary allegation on which the Section 148A(b) notice proceeds is an amount of INR 6,61,37,910/- standing to the credit of Account No. 036705500712 with ICICI Bank. The notice proceeds on the basis that the aforesaid account was maintained by the writ petitioner. Responding to the same, the petitioner asserted that the said account is not held by her and is in fact in the name of one Mr. Vipul Goel. 3. While dealing with the aforesaid explanation, the authority has

1 Act 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 Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 19:19:17

while passing the order under Section 148A(d) observed as follows:- “(ii) Further as per information, the A/c No-036705500712 with ICICI Bank having credits of Rs.6,61,37,910/- pertains to the assessee. In this regard, the assessee has submitted a copy of certificate issued by ICICI Bank Limited, Plot No. 6, Garg Trade Centre, CC, Sector-11, Rohini, New Delhi-110085 wherein the bank has certified that “It is to confirm that M/s. Rashika Polytex with CA A/c No-036705500712 was having a current account in ICICI Bank, Rohini Sector-11, Branch. The name of the proprietor is Sh. Vipul Goel with PAN: AIGPG5122K and the account is closed on 23.07.2015. And it to inform you that Ms. Renu Goyal is not part of this account and nothing to do with this account. This letter is issued at the specific request of the customer and in accordance with, and subject to, the terms and condition is applicable to the account. The bank disclaims any liability for any decision taken by any user based on the certificate.” However on perusal of the details of Sh. Vipul Goel it is noticed that account has not been declared therefore on protective ground the credits remained unexplained in the hence of Renu Goel. On the basis of the material available on record, it is concluded that this is found to be a fit case for issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act for A.Y. 2016-17. Therefore, the information of Sh. Vipul Goel may be forwarded to the concerned A.O”

4.

The fact that the bank account does not pertain to the writ petitioner is one which is also admitted in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit which has been filed in these proceedings by the respondents and which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “7. That the contents of Paragraph No. 7 are a matter of record. It is further submitted that while finalizing the order u/s 148A (d) the detail related to M/s Rashika Polytex Prop. Sh. Vipul Goel (A/c No. 036705500712) was erroneously put in, instead of M/s Vipul Udyog Prop. Renu Goel (A/c No.036705500747).”

5.

In view of the aforesaid, it is manifest that the assumption of jurisdiction is based on an incorrect fact and thus cannot sustain. 6. We, accordingly, allow the present writ petition and quash the impugned order referable to Section 148A(d) dated 29 July 2022 as

2 AY 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 Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 19:19:17

well as the consequential notice under Section 148 dated 29 July 2022.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JANUARY 17, 2025/DR 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 Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 19:19:17

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →