Disposed

Puran Store through Its Partner Hari Ram Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 43 - 1 & Ors.

Delhi HC21 Apr 2025W.P.(C)/4256/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Section 148 reassessment notice and assessment order for AY 2017-18, contending the addition for unexplained cash expenses exceeded the demonetization cash-deposit grounds of reopening. The court declined to entertain the writ given the statutory appeal remedy and permitted appeal within two weeks without delay objection.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition not entertained; petitioner permitted to file appeal within two weeks to be considered uninfluenced by delay.

Puran Store through Its Partner Hari Ram Agarwal Vs Assistant… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 4256/2025 and CM APPLs. 19697-98/2025

¶4

PURAN STORE THROUGH ITS PARTNER HARI RAM AGARWAL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Abhimanyu Jhamba with Ms Thonpinao Thangal and Ms Ayushi Srivastava, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 43 - 1 & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms Hemlata Rawat, JSC with Mr V. K Saksena, Mr Dipak Raj and Mr Subham Kumar, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R

¶9

% 21.04.2025

¶10

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , praying as

¶11

under:

¶12

“a) A Writ of Certiorari or Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India quashing Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2024 for AY 2017-18;

¶13

b) A Writ of Certiorari or Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India quashing order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 30.03.2024 for AY 2017-18;

¶14

c) A Writ, order or direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India staying the operation and effect of the assessment order dated 07.03.2025 till the disposal of the present

¶15

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 25/04/2025 at 17:31:45

¶16

Writ Petition.”

¶17

It is the petitioner’s case that in terms of the assessment order dated 07.03.2025, an addition has been made on account of certain unexplained cash expenses. The petitioner claims that no such addition could have been made as that was not the ground on which the reassessment proceedings had been initiated.

¶18

The Assessing Officer [ AO ] had issued a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ the Act ] calling upon the petitioner to respond to the information, which according to the AO was suggestive of the petitioner’s income for Assessment Year [ AY ] 2017-18 escaping assessment. The AO had information to the effect that large cash deposits had been made during the period 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 [ demonetization period ]. Thereafter, the AO passed an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act holding that it was a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The AO had issued a notice dated 30.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Act, which was accompanied by the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act.

¶19

It is the petitioner’s case that although the reassessment proceedings had been initiated on the basis of cash deposited during the demonetization period, the assessment order has been passed on completely different basis, that is, on account of unexplained expenses. It is also stated that no addition has been made on account of cash deposits during demonetization period. According to the petitioner, no addition can be made in reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act if no addition has been made on the grounds on which the assessment was reopened. The petitioner also

¶20

¶21

relies on the decision of this court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. CIT: (2011) 336 ITR 136 . The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that in view of the statutory amendments to the regime for reopening of an assessment, the aforesaid decision rendered in the context of Section 147 – 151 of the Act as in force prior to 31.03.2021, may no longer hold good.

¶22

Concededly, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of an appeal. In view of the above, we do not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition. It would be open for the petitioner to assail the impugned notices and the assessment order in an appeal including on the grounds as stated in the present petition.

¶23

We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions. All contentions of the parties are reserved.

¶24

In the event, the petitioner files an appeal within a period of two weeks from date, the same would be considered by the appellate authority uninfluenced by the question of delay.

¶25

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications are also disposed of.

¶26

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶27

TEJAS KARIA, J

¶28

APRIL 21, 2025/ tr

¶29

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 25/04/2025 at 17:31:45

Puran Store through Its Partner Hari Ram Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 43 - 1 & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puran Store through Its Partner Hari Ram Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 43 - 1 & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Axor Gold Trading Fze Vs Commissioner of Customs

Nizam Uddin Khan Vs Principal Resident Commissioner of Ut of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.

Yogesh Jain Prop. Harsh Industries Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Cbdt) & Ors.

Umesh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ankit Gulliya Vs Reserve Bank of India & Ors.

Dr Sanjay Wadhawan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Manihamsa Power Projects Ltd. Vs M/S Shree Suryachandra Synergetics India

Gyan Prakash Dev Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Others

Yogesh Jain Prop. Harsh Industries Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Cbdt) & Ors.

Rms Consultants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Tridiva Ergonomic Interiors (P) Ltd.

Sprng Energy Private Limited Vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department

Sunil Gupta & Anr. Vs Punjab National Bank & Ors.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 Vs Amol Awasthi

Sunil Gupta & Anr. Vs Punjab National Bank & Ors.