Dismissing the petition the Court held that in the absence of any explanation for the transactions entered into with the entity in the relevant financial year having been offered by the assessee in her reply to the notice dated June 23, 2022, there was no error in the order passed by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee in her detailed reply on June 28, 2022 had elected not to explain or substantiate the transaction with the entity could not contend that she was denied an opportunity of hearing. The assessee’s contention that the transaction was a loan transaction and it was repaid could be examined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings after examining the material furnished by the assessee. High Court held that there was no infirmity in the notice dated June 23, 2022 and the order passed under section 148A(d) by the Assessing Officer. SLP dismissed as not pressed. (AY.2013-14)
Saroj Chandna v. ITO (2024) 298 Taxman 647 (SC) Editorial : Saroj Chandna v. ITO (2022) 448 ITR 28 / 218 DTR 41/ 328 CTR 804/ (2023) 291 Taxman 233 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Issuing third notice and furnishing specific details of transaction which was subject matter of earlier notice-Failure to explain or substantiate genuineness of transaction in reply-Notice and order for issuance of reassessment notice is held to be valid by the High Court-SLP dismissed as not pressed. [S. 147, 148, 148A(d), Art. 136]