SMT. NEELAM SINGH W/O SHRI GAUTAM DHARMENDRA SINGH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

[2023/RJJP/009763] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7010/2023 Smt. Neelam Singh W/o Shri Gautam Dharmendra Singh, Resident Of A-50, Ayodhya Path, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur-302019 (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Central Revenue Building Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005 (Rajasthan). 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajasthan Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur- 302005 (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shafi Mohammad Chouhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. N.S. Bhati HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/05/2023 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by first respondent by which the assessing authority has directed assessment proceedings to be opened against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though the petitioner had not filed return in the assessment year 2016-17, the action of the respondents in determining that there is an escapement of income of Rs.53,78,56,493/-, is not based on any specific material. He would submit that the petitioner has admitted that she had not filed return for the concerned

[2023/RJJP/009763] (2 of 2) [CW-7010/2023] assessment year and in her books of account and other details, transaction of Rs.3,30,62,234.72/- is shown. However, this is not an admission on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner had turnover of more than 53 crores. He would submit that despite the specific demand raised by the petitioner, respondents have not supplied any information and even while passing the impugned order, specific source from which such information is said to have been collected, has not been disclosed. 3. We find that in the present case, petitioner, admittedly, had not filed return for the assessment year 2016-17. Even if the case of the petitioner is taken as it is, she had turnover of more than 3 crores. 4. It appears that the respondents, on the basis of information, are alleging that the petitioner's turnover was more than 53 crores. 5. Taking into consideration that no return was filed by the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the order. We, however, give liberty to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the assessing authority including material to submit regarding actual turnover. 6. As far as the ground relating to faceless assessment that there has been no faceless assessment carried out, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order because no return was earlier filed. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ CHARU SONI /16