Partly allowed

Madhu Chhabra v. Income Tax Officer & Anr.

Delhi HC7 Nov 2024W.P.(C)/14099/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court set aside an order and notice under Sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Directed the Assessing Officer to consider the petitioner's 2022 response to the current 2024 notice and take an informed decision before proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order and notice set aside; matter remanded to AO to consider the assessee's 2022 response.

Madhu Chhabra Vs Income Tax Officer & Anr. — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~106

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 14099/2024 & CM No.58983/2024 MADHU CHHABRA .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. V.P. Gupta, Adv. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Ms. N. Jain & Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Advs.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

¶7

¶8

O R D E R 07.11.2024

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 29.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned order ) passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act ) in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2018-19. The petitioner also impugns the notice dated 29.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice ) issued under Section 148 of the Act, initiating the reassessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

¶10

It is the Revenue’s case that the petitioner (assessee) had not filed the return of income for the AY 2018-19. And, since certain high value transactions were noted, the same suggested that the income chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice dated 09.08.2024 under Section 148A(b) of the Act. According to the Revenue, the assessee did not submit a reply to the aforesaid notice. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to pass the impugned order.

¶11

The controversy involved in the present petition, essentially, relates to the question whether the petitioner had furnished a reply in respect of the information contained in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

¶12

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 03/07/2025 at 08:45:18

¶13

It is the assessee’s case that a similar notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 23.03.2022 and the assessee had filed a detailed response to the same on 07.04.2022 along with certain documents. It is stated that the AO did not proceed further with the said notice and the issue of initiation of proceedings for reassessment of income for AY 2018-19 were dropped. It is the assesee’s case that the said response was also required to be considered before issuing any fresh notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, on instructions, states that the impugned order and the impugned notice be set aside and the matter be remanded to the AO for consideration afresh.

¶14

In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and the impugned notice in respect of the AY 2018-19. The AO shall consider the assessee’s response dated 07.04.2022 (annexed as Annexure-P5 to the present petition) as the assessee’s response to the notice dated 09.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, and shall take an informed decision. 7. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Pending application is also disposed of.

¶15

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶16

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶17

NOVEMBER 07, 2024 ‘gsr’

¶18

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶19

Madhu Chhabra v. Income Tax Officer & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Chhabra v. Income Tax Officer & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jai Shri Banke Bihari Traders Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr Robin Malik & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Sanjay Gambhir Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rachna Paul Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Jayaswal Necom Indsutries Ltd. & Anr. Vs UOI & Ors.

Kuldeep Kumar Singh Vs Apex Public School & Anr.

Manju Sharma Vs Apex Public School & Anr.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Raj Kumar Kanahi Nursery & Anr.

Phoenix Arc Private Limited Vs M/S Manasvi Security Services & Ors.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 10 Vs Vinod Gugnani

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-2 Delhi Vs Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd.

Mci International Services Inc. Now Merged With Mci International Llc (Formerly Known as Mci Interna Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

Mci International Llc (Formerly Known as Mci International, Inc) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

Narendra Kumar Aggarwal Vs Ito, Ward 43(6), Delhi