Dhan Prakash Gupta v. Income Tax Department

$~SB-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9184/2024 DHAN PRAKASH GUPTA .....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Mohini Priya, Adv.

Versus

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:

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

O R D E R

% 14.02.2025 Review Petition No.81/2025 1.

The Assessee has filed the present review petition seeking review of the order dated 20.11.2024, whereby the above-captioned petition was dismissed. 2.

The Assessee seeks a review of the order dated 20.11.2024 on essentially two grounds. First, he states that after the decision was rendered, the Assessee came across the information, which suggested that a part of the aggregate amount, which is suspected to be the income of the Assessee that has escaped assessment, is also sought to be taxed from another entity, namely JVD Tours and Travels Pvt. Limited. Second, it is stated that the order dated 20.11.2024 proceeds on erroneous assumption that the entire amount of ₹9,43,36,231/- referred to by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act), was in fact not the amount of cash deposited in the bank. However, this court proceeded on the basis that the sum of ₹9,43,36,231/- (₹8,79,42,231/- + ₹63,94,000/-) was deposited in cash. 3.

We are not persuaded to accept that the order dated 20.11.2024 warrants to be reviewed. As noticed in the said order, the principal allegation in respect of which the AO had suspected that the income of the Assessee had The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

escaped assessment was the large cash deposits in the bank account of the Assessee. This court had perused tabular statement as set out in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act and found that the Assessee in his response had neither disclosed the quantum of cash deposited during the previous year relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 nor furnished a detailed explanation as to the deposits of large amount of cash. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the order dated 20.11.2024 are set out below: "9.

A plain reading of the impugned notice indicates that the JAO had information that large cash deposits were made in the petitioner's bank accounts. A tabular statement relating to the information regarding the cash deposits as set out in the impugned notice, is reproduced below:

Information Code (₹) SFT-003 withdrawals Information Description Source Description 8965000 VIJAYA BANK 10318062 SBI CARDS AND PAYMENT SERVICES PRIVATE gross amount 5241312 KOTAK MAHINDRA 5921118 THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD gross amount 1132729 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

SFT-005 INDUSIND personpaid to the person 2500000 SFT-003 (W) ICICI 240000 ICICI 11730305 INDUSIND 12524385 FRM-15CB (P) Certificate of accountant on foreign remittance (Form 15CB) DHAN PRAKASH GUPTA payable (INR) 1037683 ICICI 6784989 EXC-002 Turnover from Services reported service tax return CBIC Gross taxable 21242048 304600 TOTAL 8,79,42,231 10.

In addition to the cash deposits aggregating ₹8,79,42,231/-, the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

JAO had also alleged that there was unexplained cash in the account (Axis Bank) amounting to ₹63,94,000/-. Thus, the total value of the transactions, which were suggestive of petitioner's income escaping assessment was quantified at ₹9,43,36,231/-. The petitioner had responded to the impugned notice raising several issues. However, we do not find that the said response contains any information either as to the quantum of cash deposited during the previous year relevant to the AY 2017-18. There was also no explanation as to why large amounts were received in cash."

4.

The petitioner contends that some of the payments as mentioned in the aforesaid table have been erroneously reflected as receipts in cash. A typographical error has crept in the tabular statement reproduced in paragraph 9 of the said order. The same is rectified to read as under: - "9.

A plain reading of the impugned notice indicates that the JAO had information that large cash deposits were made in the petitioner's bank accounts. A tabular statement relating to the information regarding the cash deposits as set out in the impugned notice, is reproduced below:

Information Code (Rs.) SFT-003 (W) withdrawals Information Description Source Description 8965000 VIJAYA BANK 10318062 SBI CARDS AND PAYMENT SERVICES PRIVATE gross amount person 5241312 KOTAK MAHINDRA person 5921118 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD gross amount person 1132729 SFT-005 Time (other than a time deposit made through renewal of another time deposit) INDUSIND person - paid to the person 2500000 SFT-003 (W) Cash withdrawls ICICI 240000 ICICI 11730305 INDUSIND person 12524385 FRM-15CB (P) Certificate of accountant on foreign remittance (Form 15CB) DHAN PRAKASH GUPTA payable (INR) 1037683 ICICI person 6784989 EXC-002 Turnover from services reported in service tax return CBIC Gross taxable 21242048 304600 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

TOTAL 8,79,42,231 10.

In addition to the deposits aggregating ₹8,79,42,231/-, the JAO had also alleged that there was unexplained cash in the account (Axis Bank) amounting to ₹63,94,000/-. Thus, the total value of the transactions, which were suggestive of petitioner's income escaping assessment was quantified at ₹9,43,36,231/-. The petitioner had responded to the impugned notice raising several issues. However, we do not find that the said response contains any information either as to the quantum of cash deposited during the previous year relevant to the AY 2017-18. There was also no explanation as to why large amounts were received in cash." 5.

Having noted the above, we are of the view that the said errors are not material. It is not necessary for this court to examine whether the total amount of alleged cash deposit is incorrect on account of the same including amounts that were not deposited by cheques or received through banking channels. Suffice it is to state that the allegation that large amount of cash was deposited in the Assessee's bank account during FY 2016-17, is not effectively traversed. The Assessee had also not provided any detailed explanation as to the quantum of cash; the source of such cash; and why the amount was received in cash instead through banking channels. 6.

The Assessee's contention that deposit of certain cash amount is also attributed to another assessee, namely JVD Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. is not required to be examined in these proceedings. The said issue was neither mentioned in response to the notice nor was urged before this court. 7.

The notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act which contains information to the effect that there were large cash deposits in the Assessee's bank accounts was issued only to enable the Assessee to explain the same. In the present case, we are unable to fault the decision of the AO that "it is a fit case for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act for want of necessary explanation". As stated above, we also clarify that the issue as to The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the exact quantum of cash deposited in the bank account of the Assessee as well as the Assessee's explanation regarding the same is required to be examined in detail during the assessment proceedings. We also consider it apposite to clarify that the said assessment is required to be made uninfluenced by the allegations made in the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act or assessee's response to the same. The procedure under Section 148A of the Act is confined to examining whether a notice under Section 148 of the Act is required to be issued and nothing more. 8.

Accordingly, no ground for review is made out, the same is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J FEBRUARY 14, 2025 'gsr'

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.