MAHASHIAN DI HATTI PVT. LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17642/2022HC DelhiDLHC01048986202223 December 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to agitate its stand before the Assessing Officer (AO). The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the merits of the matter. The AO was directed to hear the petitioner's authorized representative and provide an opportunity to place on record all evidence supporting the contention that the purchase transactions were genuine. The Court did not decide on the validity of the reassessment proceedings or the genuineness of the transactions, leaving these to be decided by the AO.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahashian Di Hatti Pvt. Limited, approached the Delhi High Court for the second time. In the first round, a writ petition (W.P.(C) 12505/2022) was disposed of on September 1, 2022. Following this, a supplementary notice dated September 15, 2022, was issued. The revenue stated that all underlying material for the reassessment proceedings had been furnished. The case involves reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, where a scrutiny assessment order under Section 143(3) had already been passed. The petitioner's counsel indicated they would argue before the Assessing Officer (AO) that the reassessment was not warranted as the purchase transactions were genuine.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings for AY 2014-15 are valid when a scrutiny assessment order under Section 143(3) has already been passed for the same AY, and if the petitioner can establish the genuineness of its purchase transactions before the Assessing Officer? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel stated that they would take their chances with the Assessing Officer to establish that the purchase transactions were genuine and therefore, the case was not fit for reopening assessment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue informed the court that all underlying material based on which reassessment proceedings have been triggered has been furnished.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17642/2022 & CM APPL. 56386/2022

MAHASHIAN DI HATTI PVT. LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Ms Shreya Jain, Adv.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R %

23.12.2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM No.56387/2022 1. Allowed, subject to the petitioner filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing. W.P.(C) 17642/2022 & CM No.56386/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief] 2. This is the second round for the petitioner. 3. In the first round, the petitioner had approached this court by way of a writ action W.P.(C)12505/2022, which was disposed of via order dated 01.09.2022. 4. Pursuant to the aforementioned order issued by this court on 01.09.2022, a supplementary notice dated 15.09.2022 was issued. 5. Mr Abhishek Maratha, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, informs the court that all underlying material based on W.P.(C) 17642/2022

page 1 of 2 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 09/06/2026 at 19:22:37

which reassessment proceedings have been triggered has been furnished. 6. We may note that this is a case where for the same Assessment Year (AY), i.e., AY 2014-15, the scrutiny assessment was carried out and the assessment order was framed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”]. 7. Given this position, learned counsel for the petitioner says that she will take her chances with the Assessing Officer (AO) to establish that this is not a case for reopening assessment as the purchase transactions made by the petitioner are genuine. 8. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms i.e., liberty is granted to the petitioner to agitate its stand before the AO. 9. Since we have not examined the merits of the matter, the AO will hear the petitioner‟s authorized representative and also grant an opportunity to place on record all evidence in support of its contention that the purchase transactions were genuine. 10. Consequently, the pending application shall stand closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

DECEMBER 23, 2022/r

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

W.P.(C) 17642/2022

page 2 of 2

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 09/06/2026 at 19:22:37

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →