Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Vivo Mobile India Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 09.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2018-19, the order dated 31.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d), and the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.

The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of High Risk CRIU/VRU information available on the Insight Portal alleging that the petitioner had made bogus capital expenditure purchases amounting to ₹7,35,47,572 from a fictitious entity named M/s Zhongmao (India) Eng. Pvt. Ltd.

In response to the notice under Section 148A(b), the petitioner clarified that it had not undertaken any transaction with M/s Zhongmao (India) Eng. Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant assessment year and submitted that its actual transactions were with M/s Zhonghua (India) Eng. Pvt. Ltd., along with documentary evidence.

Subsequently, the Revenue issued a clarificatory letter dated 22.08.2024 acknowledging the correction in the name of the entity and stating that physical verification revealed that the said entity was not found operating at the given address. Relying on this, the Assessing Officer concluded that the entity was a non-existent paper company and passed an order under Section 148A(d) treating the purchases as bogus without issuing any fresh notice or granting an opportunity to respond to this new allegation.

Issues Involved

Whether an order under Section 148A(d) can be sustained when the Assessing Officer relies on allegations not contained in the notice issued under Section 148A(b)
Whether reassessment proceedings initiated after completion of assessment are valid when principles of natural justice are violated
Whether the Assessing Officer could assume jurisdiction without placing relevant incriminating material before the assessee

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated as the impugned order was passed on an entirely new ground, namely the alleged non-existence of M/s Zhonghua (India) Eng. Pvt. Ltd., which was never put to the petitioner in the show cause notice. It was argued that denial of opportunity to rebut this allegation amounted to a clear violation of principles of natural justice.

It was further submitted that once the original assessment had concluded, the Assessing Officer had become functus officio and could reassume jurisdiction only by strictly following the statutory procedure, including disclosure of relevant incriminating material.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Revenue argued that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on credible information from the Insight Portal suggesting accommodation entries through a fictitious entity. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer was justified in concluding that the purchases were bogus after physical verification revealed that the supplier entity did not exist at the declared address.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court held that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) suffered from a fundamental procedural defect. The Court noted that the conclusion regarding the entity being non-existent and bogus was never put to the petitioner in the notice issued under Section 148A(b). Passing an adverse order on such a ground without affording an opportunity of hearing amounted to a clear violation of principles of natural justice.

The Court emphasised that principles of natural justice are inherent in all administrative and quasi-judicial actions, particularly in taxing statutes, unless expressly excluded by legislative intent. The Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT and the Calcutta High Court ruling in Grindlays Bank Plc. vs. CIT to reiterate that after completion of assessment, the Assessing Officer becomes functus officio and jurisdiction for reassessment can be assumed only by strictly complying with statutory requirements.

The Court held that in the absence of relevant incriminating material being put to the assessee, the reassessment proceedings could not be sustained.

Important Clarification

The High Court clarified that an order under Section 148A(d) must be strictly confined to the allegations contained in the notice issued under Section 148A(b). Any material or inference adverse to the assessee must be disclosed and an opportunity to respond must be granted. Reassessment proceedings initiated after completion of assessment cannot be sustained on grounds not previously disclosed to the assessee.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1770018890_VIVOMOBILEINDIAPRIVATELIMITEDVsASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAXANR..pdf

 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.