{"id":33504,"date":"2023-03-29T17:44:31","date_gmt":"2023-03-29T12:14:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/kusum-gupta-v-ito-2023-451-itr-142-290-taxman-172-delhihc\/"},"modified":"2023-03-29T17:44:31","modified_gmt":"2023-03-29T12:14:31","slug":"kusum-gupta-v-ito-2023-451-itr-142-290-taxman-172-delhihc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/kusum-gupta-v-ito-2023-451-itr-142-290-taxman-172-delhihc\/","title":{"rendered":"Kusum Gupta v. ITO (2023) 451 ITR 142 \/ 290 Taxman 172 (Delhi)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On a writ petition challenging the notice issued under section\u00a0148A(b)\u00a0of the\u00a0Income-tax Act, 1961\u00a0and the order passed under section\u00a0148A(d)\u00a0for issue of notice under section\u00a0148\u00a0 of the Act the Court held that the Assessing Officer should have provided this report in the first instance with the notice issued under section\u00a0148A(b), especially when the assessee had requested this information in her reply. The assessee had been denied an effective opportunity to answer the findings made in the report with respect to the transactions undertaken by the assessee. Hence, the order passed under section\u00a0148A(d)\u00a0and the notice issued under section\u00a0148\u00a0with a direction to the assessee to file her additional reply, responding to the findings of the report of the Investigation Wing for consideration of the Assessing Officer and thereafter pass an order under section\u00a0148A(d). (AY.2013-14)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Information from Investigation Wing-Capital gains-Alleged bogus scripts-Penny stock-Failure to furnish information received from Investigation Wing-Notice was quashed-Directed the  AO to furnish the information and pass the order after considering the explanation of the assessee. [S. 45, 69A, 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33504","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-8Io","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33504","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33504"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33504\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33505,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33504\/revisions\/33505"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33504"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33504"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}