IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
.
.
ITA 137/2008
.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through:Ms.P.L.Bansal, Adv.
.
versus
.
MEENA GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through
.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
.
O R D E R
03.03.2008
The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 11th April, 2007 passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench G in ITA No.414/Del/06 relevant for
the assessment year 1997-1998 along with C.O.No.76/Del/2007.
In this case notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was
issued to the Assessee on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer
on 8th September, 2003. The reasons read as follows:-
? During the course of post search enquiries conducted by DDIT (Inv.) Gurgaon in
the case of M/s R.K. Aggarwal and Co. (Prop Sh.Satish Goyal, 1748/55, Naiwala,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi it was found that Ms.Meena Gupta, A-1/106, Paschim
Vihar, New Delhi had received a payment Rs. 5,00,000/- + 5,00,000/- +
4,84,250/- = 14,84,250/- by
.
ITA 137/2008
Page 1 of 3
.
cheque/draft bearing No.921291,926204 and 926209 from M/s. R.K.Aggarwal and Co
which was issued from its bank account No.CA-3097, Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi and deposited by Ms.Meena Gupta in his Bank A/c. No.24774 with Canara
Bank, Shakti Nagar, Delhi on 25/04/1996, 12/06/1996 and 19/06/1996. Further
enquiries revealed that Ms.Meena Gupta had introduced the founds through
accommodation entry in the form of profit earned on a/c of transaction of
shares. These transactions has been shown as long term capital gains and have
been claimed as exempted u/s 54F of IT. Act. No purchase or sale of shares
have taken place.
.
As per our record there is no return of income filed by the Assessee for
the assessment year 1997-98. Hence, I have reason to believe that a sum of
Rs.14,84,250/- has escaped assessment. Hence, it is proposed to issue notice
u/s 148 of the IT Act in this case for the assessment year 1997-98.?
.
A reading of these reasons show that the transactions that were under
consideration had been shown by the Assessee as long term capital gain and were
claimed as exempted under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
.
.
Notwithstanding this, the Assessing Officer issued a notice on the
ground that since no return was filed by the Assessee for the assessment year
1997-98 (the relevant assessment year), therefore, he has reason to believe that
the transaction amount escaped assessment.
The Tribunal noted as a matter of fact and, with which we agree, that
there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded that
there was a failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose material facts
ITA 137/2008 Page 2 of 3
necessary for assessment. The actual assessment was made under Section 143(3)
of the Act and the assessment order shows that the issue relating to the
transaction which resulted in long term capital gains was discussed in the
assessment order and the Assessing Officer was satisfied in respect of the
capital gains declared by the Assessee. Under the circumstances, it was no case
where the Assessee had not disclosed all the relevant facts.
The original assessment order was passed on 31st March, 2000 and the
period of limitation was to expire (for the assessment year 1997-98) on 31st
March, 2002. The notice was issued to the Petitioner under Section 148 of the
Act on 8th September, 2003. On these facts, the proviso to the Section 147 of
the Act would not come to the rescue of the Revenue since all the relevant facts
were disclosed by the Assessee.
There is no merit in this appeal.
Dismissed.
.
.
MADAN B. LOKUR, J
.
.
V.B. GUPTA, J
MARCH 03, 2008
Bisht
.
.
.
ITA 137/2008 Page 3 of 3
.