UDAY KUMAR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6351/2022HC DelhiDLHC01015280202221 April 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact, including allegations of fraud and forgery, which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. The Court noted that the Master Data Record of the company, filed by the petitioner himself, showed him as an authorized signatory since July 25, 2016. The petitioner's own reply dated December 31, 2021, stated he was appointed as a 'fake manager' on that date. The Court also observed that the petitioner had not shown that he had, at any stage, asked for the report filed by the Resolution Professional before the NCLT. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise all his defenses and submissions before the Appellate Authority and in appropriate forums/courts, leaving the rights and contentions of all parties open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Uday Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 30, 2022, passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge also extended to a demand notice under Section 156 and penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner also challenged a report by Respondent no.2 (Resolution Professional) submitted before the NCLT, alleging it implicated him without a hearing. The petitioner claimed the proceedings were based on a report wrongfully alleging he received Rs. 59,18,00,000/- from 636 investors in M/s Aurochem Buildprop Private Limited, a group company of M/s Earth Infrastructure Limited, and that he never worked for this company.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated March 30, 2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the demand notice under Section 156, and penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(b) for AY 2015-16 are liable to be quashed on the grounds of procedural irregularities and lack of fair hearing? 2. Whether the report of the Resolution Professional submitted before the NCLT, to the extent it implicates the Petitioner, is liable to be set aside as it was prepared without granting an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the entire proceeding is based on a report from the Resolution Professional which wrongfully alleged receipt of Rs. 59,18,00,000/- from investors in M/s Aurochem Buildprop Private Limited, and that details of this report were never provided. He contended he never worked for the company and thus the finding of receipt of funds is frivolous and fabricated. He also stated he was not granted a fair hearing and the respondents proceeded with a predetermined mind. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 156,Section 274,Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) No.6351/2022 Page 1 of 3 $~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6351/2022 & C.M.Nos.19197-19199/2022 UDAY KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Anand Shankar with Mr.Debashis Mukherjee, Advocates. versus ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, standing counsel for the Revenue. % Date of Decision: 21st April, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30th March, 2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), notice of demand under Section 156 and also penalty proceeding initiated under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16 by Respondent no.1. Petitioner also challenges the report of respondent no.2 submitted before the NCLT, to the extent it implicates the Petitioner as the same has been prepared without granting an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001441

W.P.(C) No.6351/2022 Page 2 of 3 2. Petitioner also seeks a direction to Respondent no.3 to provide true and correct information about the role and association of Petitioner in Respondent no.3 company to Respondent no.1 &2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the entire proceeding is based on the report of the Resolution Professional filed in NCLT, wherein it is wrongfully alleged that the Petitioner had received a sum of Rs.59,18,00,000/- from 636 investors in M/s Aurochem Buildprop Private Limited. He states that details of the said report were never provided to the Petitioner. He submits that the Petitioner had not been granted a fair hearing and the Respondents had proceeded with a pre determined mind. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner never worked in the company i.e. M/s Aurochem BuildProp Private Limited and therefore the alleged finding that Petitioner had received an amount of Rs. 59,18,00,000/- from the investors of the said company, which is a group company of M/s Earth Infrastructure Limited, is frivolous & fabricated. 5. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the Master Data Record of the company filed by the Petitioner itself shows that the Petitioner has been an authorized signatory of the company since 25th July, 2016 and continues to be so. The Petitioner in his reply dated 30th December, 2021 has taken a defence that he was appointed as a ‘fake manager’ on 25th July, 2016. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the present petition involves disputed questions of fact as well as allegations of fraud and forgery – which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. In any event, the Petitioner has not been able to show to this Court that the This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001441

W.P.(C) No.6351/2022 Page 3 of 3 Petitioner had, at any stage, asked for a report filed by the Resolution Professional before the NCLT. 7. Consequently, the present writ petition along with pending applications are disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to raise all his defences and submissions before the Appellate Authority as well as in appropriate forums/courts. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. MANMOHAN, J DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J APRIL 21, 2022 KA This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001441

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →