MONISH GAJAPATI RAJU PUSAPATI vs ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 21.02.2025 Judgment delivered on: 27.02.2025 + W.P.(C) 2043/2025 & CM APPL. 9611-12/2025 MONISH GAJAPATI RAJU PUSAPATI ...Petitioner versus ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ANR. ...Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr. Apoorv Agarwal (JSC), Mr. Parth Samwal (JSC), Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha and Ms. Muskaan Goel, Advocates for the Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA JUDGMENT TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 23.03.2024 (hereafter referred as “impugned notice”) issued under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred as “the Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 as well as an order dated 03.02.2025 (hereafter referred as “impugned order”) whereby the respondents/revenue had disposed of the objections dated 13.09.2024 filed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2043/2025 Page 1 of 9 By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Date:27.02.2025 14:51:16 by the petitioner with respect to the assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act for AY 2020-21. 2. Mr. Piyush Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the said notice was issued pursuant to the information collected under section 135A of the Act, which pertains to the transactions entered by some other assessee (Manisha Jain) having a different PAN and having no relation with the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned notice was issued in an absolutely misconceived manner, vitiating the procedure laid down under secti