GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of the parties, we take up the appeal itself for hearing and disposal.

(2.) This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dtd. 26/4/2022 in W.P.A. No.7034 of 2022. The appellant challenged the notice issued under Sec. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") dtd. 17/3/2022 on the ground that adequate opportunity has not been granted to the appellant though the statute specifies that minimum 7 days' time should be granted to the assessee to respond and the assessee should be heard in the matter. However, the assesee has also uploaded a reply dtd. 23/3/2022 in which there were enclosures and after making submission on merit, they have pointed out that seven clear days notice was not granted to the assessee and had requested the Assessing Officer to provide all the details of enquiry conducted by the department and also copy of the statement recorded from Sri Praveen Kumar Kasera under Sec. 132(4) of the Act on 2/2/2018. The respondent / Assessing Officer has passed the order dtd. 29/3/2022 under Sec. 148A(d) of the Act in which he has noted that the assessee has submitted an elaborate reply. However, the Assessing Officer proceeds on the basis that in the reply, substantial portion has been devoted by discussing the effect of Sec. 148, 148A of the Act and the assessee has avoided to give specific answers to the pointed questions and given a generalised and inaccurate reply on certain issue and preferred to remain totally silent on other issues for reasons best known to him. It is, therefore, notice under Sec. 148 has been issued to the appellant which is also dtd. 29/3/2022. It is at that stage the writ petition came to be filed.

(3.) Firstly, to test the correctness of the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer about the tenor of the reply, we have perused the reply given by the assessee and we find that there is no elaborate discussion on the effect of Sec. 148, 148A of the Act. In fact, the reply is on merits. According to the learned senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, it is submitted not only the reply was given but enclosures have been uploaded including bank statements to show that the remittances were through proper banking channels. Further, it is submitted that reasonable opportunity was not being granted to the appellant. In support of the contention, the learned senior Advocate has referred to the decision in the case of M/s. R. N. Fashion Vs. Union of India and Ors. in APOT 85 of 2022 dtd. 20/3/2022.