Delhi High Court Sets Aside Income Tax Reassessment Against India TV Parent | Alleged Unaccounted Foreign Remittances Not Established | AO May Issue Fresh Notice If Credible Information Exists
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that the assessing officer’s order could not be sustained as it travelled beyond the scope of the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court directed that the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 be set aside. It further clarified that if there exists any credible information suggesting that income had escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year, it would remain open to the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law. The writ petition was thus disposed of along with pending applications.
The petitioner filed the writ petition impugning an order dated 08.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with the consequent notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner had filed its original income tax return on 18.10.2017 declaring an income of ₹61,35,36,200 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Subsequently, on 26.03.2019, it filed a revised return declaring an income of ₹61,10,86,200 for the same assessment year. The return was taken up for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 22.11.2019.
Later, proceedings for reopening of assessment were initiated through issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) dated 26.03.2024. The annexure to this notice stated that a survey under Section 133A was conducted on 11.05.2019 at the corporate headquarters of Jammu and Kashmir Bank at Srinagar. During this survey, information relating to inward and outward foreign remittances was collected. It was reported that the petitioner had made foreign remittances amounting to ₹6,50,84,454 during Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessing officer observed that the amounts in the remittance data did not tally with those reflected in the petitioner’s bank statement, suggesting that the petitioner’s income to this extent had escaped assessment.
The annexure included details stating that information had been received on the Insight Portal under the head High Risk CRIU/VRU maintained by the Income Tax Department, and the petitioner was called upon to show cause within seven days as to why proceedings under Sections 148 and 148A should not be initiated to bring the said amount to tax. It directed the petitioner to submit replies along with documentary evidence, including ITR, Form 26AS, balance sheet, computation of income, and bank account statements.
The petitioner submitted its reply on 02.04.2024 disputing the quantum of remittances and contending that the information in the notice did not pertain to it. It had also obtained a confirmation from Jammu and Kashmir Bank stating that the details of foreign remittances mentioned in the notice did not belong to the petitioner. A copy of this confirmation was forwarded to the assessing officer along with its reply.
Despite the petitioner’s response, the assessing officer passed the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 under Section 148A(d) concluding that inward and outward foreign remittance transactions amounting to ₹11,37,67,029 remained unexplained. The order recorded that the petitioner had entered into foreign remittances transactions including sending of foreign remittances as per Form 15CC amounting to ₹1,28,84,470, receipt of remittance by a non-resident or foreign company as per Form 15CA amounting to ₹7,08,50,894, and certificate of accountant on foreign remittance as per Form 15CB amounting to ₹3,00,31,665, aggregating to ₹11,37,67,029.
The assessing officer held that these transactions were verified from the bank statements of the petitioner for AY 2017-18, and as no explanation was provided, the income was held to have escaped assessment under Section 149(1)(b) since it was more than fifty lakh rupees and was represented in the form of entries in the books of account.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru recorded that the notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act did not contain any allegation regarding income amounting to ₹11,37,67,029 escaping assessment.
The only information which, according to the assessing officer, suggested that income had escaped assessment for Assessment Year 2017-18 was that the assessee had made foreign remittances amounting to ₹6,50,84,454.
He stated that it was apparent the impugned order had travelled beyond the scope of the notice under Section 148A(b).
The court was of the view that the impugned order could not be sustained, and also noted that there was a question regarding the credibility of the information in the notice, considering that the petitioner had obtained confirmation from Jammu and Kashmir Bank regarding the remittances made.
However, it held that the order could not be sustained on the ground that it travelled beyond the scope of the notice, and therefore it was not necessary to examine the other issues raised in the petition.
The court directed that the impugned order be set aside.
It clarified that if the assessing officer possesses any credible information indicating that the petitioner’s income had escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year, the officer would not be precluded from issuing a fresh notice in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of on these terms, and the pending application was also disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. M.P. Rastogi with Mr. Ram Naresh and Mr. Shivam Malik, Advocates in line
For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs
Case Title: M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1) & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5156-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 11601/2024
Bench: Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Tejas Karia
