{"id":60149,"date":"2026-06-05T08:06:09","date_gmt":"2026-06-05T02:36:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/ramakant-v-ito-2025-482-itr-910-delhihc\/"},"modified":"2026-06-05T08:06:09","modified_gmt":"2026-06-05T02:36:09","slug":"ramakant-v-ito-2025-482-itr-910-delhihc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/ramakant-v-ito-2025-482-itr-910-delhihc\/","title":{"rendered":"Ramakant v. ITO (2025) 482 ITR 910 (Delhi)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On a review petition by the assessee against the judgment passed in a writ petition challenging the validity of the notices issued under section 148 and section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 contending that the reliefs sought for were not considered while disposing of the writ petition and that it was incumbent on the court to first establish as to whether or not those prayers were made out, dismissing the review petition, that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. While closing the writ petition the court had indicated that since the assessment order did not foist any tax liability on the assessee, as the income of Rs. 1,96,430 declared by him was accepted, the writ petition need not progress any further but had granted the assessee leeway to take recourse to a statutory remedy in accordance with law, in case he was still aggrieved by the assessment order. The reasons for issue of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were based on the information from the Department system firstly, that the assessee was a &#8220;non-filer&#8221; and secondly, that he had deposited cash of Rs. 14,00,000 in his bank account in the financial year 2011-2012 relevant to the assessment year 2012-2013.Reassessment notice was valid.(AY.2012-13)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 147 :Reassessment-Notice-Review of judgment-Disputing deposit of cash in bank account forming ground for reassessment notice-Notice valid.[S. 148, 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_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":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60149","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fE9","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60149","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=60149"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60149\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60150,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60149\/revisions\/60150"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}