RAMVEER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 43(1)ANR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the petitioner's explanation regarding the source of funds for the fixed deposits was not tenable. The Court observed that there was no direct correlation between the fixed deposits made and the funds received from the redemption of earlier fixed deposits. The Court noted that the petitioner's contention of renewing earlier fixed deposits was incorrect. Furthermore, the bank accounts and fund-flow statement indicated other sources of receipts, including alleged repayments of loans. The Court found no fault with the AO's reasoning in the order passed under Section 148A(d) and also noted that the petitioner had not filed a return for the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge to the order and the consequent notice under Section 148.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Ramveer, challenged a show cause notice dated 06.02.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The notice alleged escaped assessment based on information regarding fixed deposits totaling ₹54,50,000 and TDS on interest of ₹1,91,166. The petitioner explained the fixed deposits were from redeemed earlier fixed deposits. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) found a discrepancy of ₹11,09,402 between FDR redemption and new FDRs, and noted that bank statements did not clearly show credits from old FDR redemptions. The AO passed an order under Section 148A(d) on 29.03.2024, finding the explanation not tenable. The petitioner also had not filed a return for AY 2017-18.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the explanation provided by the petitioner regarding the source of funds for fixed deposits made during AY 2017-18 was sufficient to address the alleged escaped income, as required under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the fixed deposits were made from the redemption of earlier fixed deposits and provided bank accounts and a fund-flow statement to substantiate this claim. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Assessing Officer, contended that there was a difference of ₹11,09,402 between the FDR redemption and new FDRs, and the bank statements did not clearly indicate that the credit entries were due to the redemption of old FDRs. The AO found the petitioner's submission not acceptable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13163/2024 & CM APPL. 54983/2024 (interim relief)
RAMVEER
.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kaushik & Mr. Gurdayal, Advocate.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 43(1)ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
O R D E R %
16.10.2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter-alia, impugning a show cause notice dated 06.02.2024, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act), in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2017-18, informing the petitioner that there was information which suggests that the petitioner’s income for the relevant AY had escaped assessment. 2. The annexure to the said notice indicates that the Assessing Officer (hereafter AO) had found three pieces of information – two related to making of fixed deposits for an amount of ₹34,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) and ₹20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) respectively. The third piece of information was regarding Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by HDFC Bank, in respect of interest amounting 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 04/11/2024 at 11:26:03
to ₹1,91,166/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety One Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Six Only). 3. The petitioner responded to the said notice, inter-alia, explaining that the source of funds of the fixed deposits made were fixed deposits that were redeemed. The fixed deposits that were shown were on account of renewal of the FDR amount. The AO did not find the said explanation as fully addressing the information that the assessee’s income had escaped assessment. The AO accordingly passed an order dated 29.03.2024 under Section 148A(d) of the Act, inter-alia, observing as under: “7. Reply furnished by the assessee has been considered u/s 148A(c) of the Act and found not tenable on the issue of FDRs of Rs.34,50,000/- & 20,00,000/- made out of the redemption of old FDRs. As per the flow statement submitted by the assessee, total FDR redemption in Indian Bank is Rs.23,40,958/- and FDR made of Rs.34,50,000/- and there is a difference of Rs.11,09,402/- between the FDR redemption and New FDRs. Further on perusal of the bank statement it is found that it is not clear that the credit entries are due to redemption of old FDRs. Hence the submission filed by the assessee is not acceptable.”
The petitioner seeks to effectively impugn the aforesaid reasoning in this petition. The petitioner had furnished his bank accounts as well as provided a fund-flow statement to substantiate his claim that the fixed deposits made with Indian Bank (previously known as Allahabad Bank) were from funds received from proceeds of the fixed deposits that were made earlier. 5. However, a bare perusal of the bank accounts as well as the fund- flow statement provided by the petitioner indicates that there is no direct correlation between the fixed deposits made by the petitioner and the funds received from redemption of fixed deposits that were made earlier. The 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 04/11/2024 at 11:26:03
contention that the fixed deposits were made by renewing the earlier fixed deposits is, concededly, incorrect. The bank accounts and the fund flow statement indicates that the petitioner also had other sources of receipts, including amounts that he claimed were lent earlier and were repaid by the borrowers. 6. In view of the above, we are unable to fault the AO’s reasoning as articulated in the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. It is also material to note that the petitioner had not filed any return of income for the relevant assessment year (AY 2017-18). 7. In the given facts of this case, we find no merit in the petitioner’s challenge to the order dated 29.03.2024, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, or the consequent notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 8. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J OCTOBER 16, 2024/at
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. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/11/2024 at 11:26:03
More judgments on Section 148A(b)
- Venkata Durga Agencies, Kakinada vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, KakinadaITA 692/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S Mittal Alloy Castings Co., Raigarh vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), BilaspurITA 685/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Heard12 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Khubchandani, Raipur vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), RaipurITA 437/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Farman Sk, Malda vs I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), MaldaITA 3001/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Pramila Satyanarayan Bhandari, Surat vs DCIT, Circle-1(3), SuratITA 22/SRT/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri. Adbul Rahim vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 13 Nov 2026
- Sandhyarani Das vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central ExciseOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- M/S.Pitabas Jena,Pokharigaon, Cuttack vs. Supernitendent, Cuttack-Iii, Range, CuttackOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Sudarshan Behera vs. Superintendent Angul Circle, AngulOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Gayatri Priyadarshini Bisoi vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Cuttack-Ii,Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 11 Nov 2026