URBAN HOMES REALTY vs. UNION OF INDIA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/7994/2023HC BombayHCBM01022318202304 July 2023Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 23, 2023, issued under Section 148A(b), the impugned order dated March 31, 2023, passed under Section 148A(d), and the notice dated March 31, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found the revenue's findings in the impugned order to be incorrect. It noted that the notice under Section 142(1) explicitly asked for property purchase details, purchase deeds, and bank statements for payments. The petitioner had provided these in its reply dated September 7, 2018, including the purchase agreement detailing payments. The Assessment Order under Section 143(3) specifically recorded that various details were submitted, examined, placed on record, and CASS/ITS data was verified. The Court reasoned that if the Assessing Officer was not satisfied, particularly with the bank statements and payment sources as requested in the Section 142(1) notice, the Assessment Order would not have been passed in the manner it was. Furthermore, the petitioner had provided details of the consideration and sources of funds in its reply to the Section 148A(b) notice. Therefore, the statement in the impugned order that the petitioner did not provide details or explain the source was factually incorrect. The ratio is that once a transaction has been subjected to complete scrutiny under Section 143(3) and all primary facts have been disclosed and verified to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, a fresh assessment under Section 148A cannot be initiated based on the same information without demonstrating a failure to disclose or a misrepresentation of primary facts.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Urban Homes Realty, a property developer, filed its return for Assessment Year 2016-17 on October 5, 2016, declaring an income of Rs. 96,590. The petitioner received a notice under Section 142(1) on August 24, 2018, requesting details of properties purchased, including purchase deeds and bank statements for payments. The petitioner responded on September 7, 2018, providing details of a land purchase for Rs. 28.50 Crores for the 'PARI Towers' project, attaching the purchase agreement. An Assessment Order under Section 143(3) was passed on November 29, 2018, noting the case was selected for scrutiny due to 'large investment in property' and that all submitted details were examined and verified. Subsequently, on March 23, 2023, the petitioner received a notice under Section 148A(d) alleging income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, citing information from the Insight portal regarding the Rs. 28.50 Crores property purchase. The petitioner replied on March 27, 2023, arguing the matter was already scrutinized.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing a notice under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17, when the same transaction of property purchase was already subject to complete scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that all primary facts necessary for assessment, including details of the property purchase and payment sources, were disclosed during the original assessment under Section 143(3). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS due to the large investment in property, and the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the provided details. Therefore, there cannot be a 'second inning' for the same property transaction. The petitioner relied on the fact that the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) was passed after examining all submitted details. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through the impugned order under Section 148A(d), contended that the issue covered under complete scrutiny in the original assessment was not related to the verification of the source of funds for the property purchase, and thus, the issue needed to be verified afresh. It was also stated that the petitioner had not furnished relevant bank statements evidencing payments or explained the source during the Section 148A(b) proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/6 904-WP-7994-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7994 OF 2023 Urban Homes Realty ….Petitioner V/s. Union of India and Anr. …Respondents ---- Mr. Mahaveer Jain a/w Ms. Ujjwala Chaturvedi for Petitioner. Mr. Ajeet Manwani a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani for Respondents-Revenue. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

DATED : 4th JULY 2023 P.C. : 1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case with the consent of parties we are taking up the matter for hearing and final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. Petitioner is a partnership firm and carrying on business as property developers. Petitioner had filed on 5th October 2016 return for Assessment Year 2016-17 declaring a total amount of Rs.96,590/- as income. 3. Petitioner then received a notice dated 24th August 2018 under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) calling upon petitioner to furnish various information as per annexture to the said notice. One such information, i.e., relevant to the matter at hand is “Please submit Purti Parab PURTI PRASAD PARAB Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2023.07.11 10:43:21 +0530

2/6 904-WP-7994-2023.doc details of all the properties purchased during the year along with copies of purchase deeds and copy of the statement of bank account from which the payment was made”. Petitioner replied to this notice by its letter dated 7th September 2018 and gave following details : 5. Copy or Purchase deed for properties purchased during the year. During the year the assessee has purchased Land from the company Precision Automation and Robotics India Ltd. admeasuring 11971 sq. mt. situated at S. No. 38 Narhe for the total consideration of Rs.28.50 Crores. The said land is utilized for the construction of housing project under the name and style “PARI Towers” undertaken by the assessee. The Copy of the agreement for purchase of said land is attached herewith. (Refer Annexure C). 4. The payment details for the property is also given in paragraph no.2 of the agreement, copy whereof was annexed to the said reply dated 7th September 2018. Thereafter, the Assessment Order dated 29th November 2018 came to be passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. In the Assessment Order it is expressly mentioned that petitioner’s return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and petitioner’s case was selected by CASS for complete scrutiny for various reasons, one of which is “large investment in property”. It is also recorded in the Assessment Order that during the course of assessment proceedings, petitioner submitted various details as called for, the details filed were examined and placed on record. The CASS and ITS data has been verified from the details submitted by petitioner. After due examination, the income computed is Rs.96,590/- under Section 143(3) of the Act. Purti Parab

3/6 904-WP-7994-2023.doc 5. Later petitioner received a notice dated 23rd March 2023 under Clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act by which petitioner was informed that there was information which suggests that income chargeable to tax for Assessment Year 2016-17 has escaped assessment. The details of the information/enquiry conducted on which reliance was placed alongwith supporting documents are also mentioned in the annexture to the notice. Petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why a notice under Section 148 of the Act should not be issued. Due to information uploaded in VRU Model under Insight portal, the case of petitioner was picked up in High Risk CRIU/VRU from Insight portal as petitioner has entered into transaction of purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs.28,50,00,000/- relates to Assessment Year 2016-17. In the information description the same property is mentioned twice and Mr. Manwani in fairness stated that it has been later corrected. Therefore, the only information was relating to purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs.28,50,00,000/-. Petitioner filed a detailed reply vide its letter dated 27th March 2023. Petitioner raised various grounds including the fact that the same transaction came under complete scrutiny before the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed. Petitioner also submitted that petitioner’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the same property and petitioner was also called upon to explain the source of payment, details of which have been filed alongwith petitioner’s reply dated 7th September 2018. It was also petitioner’s case that since all primary facts Purti Parab

4/6 904-WP-7994-2023.doc necessary for assessment were disclosed at the time of original assessment there cannot be a second inning for the same property. Petitioner also provided details of the property and the payments made including the source from which the payment was obtained. 6. Notwithstanding petitioner’s explanation, an order dated 31st March 2023 which is impugned in this petition came to be passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The findings to justify issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is very brief. It only states that issue covered under complete scrutiny in the case of petitioner was not related to verification of source in respect of purchase of property and hence the issue needs to be verified afresh. It also states that petitioner has not furnished relevant bank statement evidencing the payments made for purchase of the property during the year and has also not explained the source during the course of issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 7. In our view, all these findings are incorrect in as much as in the notice under Section 142 (1) issued on 24th August 2018, petitioner was expressly called upon to submit all the details of all the properties purchased alongwith copies of purchase deed and copy of statement of the bank account from which the payment was made. In its reply dated 7th September 2018 petitioner has given details of property purchased including copies of Purchase Deed. The Purchase Deed also contains details of Purti Parab

5/6 904-WP-7994-2023.doc payments made. In the Assessment Order dated 29th November 2018 the Assessing Officer has specifically stated that during the course of assessment proceedings assessee submitted various details as called for. The details filed by assessee are examined and placed on record and the CASS and ITS data has been verified from the details submitted by assessee. The Assessment Order also states that the case was selected by CASS for scrutiny in view of large investment in property, among other things. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was certainly satisfied with all the details provided by petitioner. If he was not, in other words, if petitioner had not furnished copy of the statement of bank accounts from which the payment was made as mentioned in the notice dated 24th August 2018, certainly the Assessing Officer would not have passed the Assessment Order the way he had passed. Moreover, in the reply dated 27th March 2023 to the notice issued under Section 148A(b), petitioner has given details of the consideration paid for the property and the source of funds. Therefore, for the Assessing Officer to state in the impugned order dated 31st March 2023 that petitioner did not provide the details or explain the source etc., is an incorrect statement. 8. In the circumstances, we hereby quash and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 23rd March 2023 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the Impugned Order dated 31st March 2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice dated 31st March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act. Purti Parab

6/6 904-WP-7994-2023.doc 9. Petition disposed.

(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Purti Parab

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →