Ashu Chopra vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Ashu Chopra, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging two notices dated February 13, 2024, and March 22, 2024, issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under the Income Tax Act, 1961. These notices initiated reassessment proceedings. The petitioner contended that certain transactions attributed to her PAN were fraudulent and that her PAN was misused. The AO, in an order dated March 22, 2024, noted that the petitioner had claimed misuse of her PAN and identity proofs, and that GST proceedings in 2022 were closed. However, the AO found that the petitioner failed to provide documentary proof regarding the nature of the offense, action taken reports from GST authorities, or the outcome of any FIR/complaint lodged with the police. Consequently, the AO concluded that the transactions remained unexplained.

Held

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court found that the principal grounds on which the reassessment was assailed involved disputed issues of fact. The Court held that these disputed facts did not raise any jurisdictional questions that would justify the invocation of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's claims of PAN misuse and fraudulent transactions required substantiation with documentary evidence, which the AO found lacking. Therefore, the Court concluded that the matter was best dealt with in the ongoing reassessment proceedings. The dismissal of the writ petition was without prejudice to the petitioner's right to raise all contentions in the reassessment proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the primary grounds of challenge involve disputed questions of fact regarding the misuse of the petitioner's PAN and the nature of transactions. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to withdraw the notices and prevent further consequential action, asserting that the reassessment was based on allegations and transactions attributed to her that she denied and claimed were fraudulent. She argued that her PAN and identity proofs were misused. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, Union of India and others, implicitly argued against entertaining the writ petition by virtue of the AO's findings. The AO's order, relied upon by the revenue, stated that the petitioner had not provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate her claims of PAN misuse and that the transactions remained unexplained. The revenue's position, as reflected in the AO's order, was that the petitioner had failed to discharge her burden of proof.