Rajasthan High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment As Income Tax Dept. Failed To Hold Proper Investigation

The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has quashed the income tax reassessment and held that the Income Tax Department had not done any investigation or held an inquiry. There was no other material except the value determined by the A.O.

The bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Ashutosh Kumar has observed that the additions were made solely based on the order passed by the AO determining the value of the goods imported. The order passed by the AO was quashed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

For Assessment Year 2016–2017, the respondent or assessee filed returns. On receiving information from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) regarding evasion of custom duty by undervaluing the paper cup machines imported from China, the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were initiated. On the basis of the order passed by the adjudicating officer determining the valuation of imports, the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act culminated in additions being made.

The assessee succeeded before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeal), and the appeal was allowed.

The department contended that the appellate authorities ought to have decided the matter on merit rather than relying upon the fact that the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal and deleted the additions under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal erred in recording that the department is in appeal before the Court, whereas the appeal of the Customs Authorities is pending.

The assessee contended that the addition was on the basis of the valuation of the import made by the A.O. and that the order no longer exists after acceptance of the appeal of the respondent by CESTAT. The Tribunal safeguarded the interest of the revenue and granted liberty to decide the matter afresh in the event of an acceptance of a customs appeal.

The court dismissed the department's appeal and held that it was initiated on the basis of the information received from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).

Counsel For Petitioner: Sandeep Pathak

Counsel For Respondent: Siddharth Ranka

Case Title: PCIT Versus Smt. Sonal Jain

Case No.: D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 20/2024

Click Here To Read The Order