Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Sandeep Stocks Pvt. Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax … on 7 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:30642-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11782/2025
Sandeep Stocks Pvt. Ltd., having Its Registered Office At A-40 A,
Bajaj Nagar, Opposite Gandhinagar Railway Station, Jaipur-
302015, Through Its Director Mr. Sandeep Sharma S/o Budhi
Prakash Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Aa-5, Anita Colony,
Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur-302015.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6, Jaipur
2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-4,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. Adv. assisted
by Mr. Rajat Sharma & Mr. Saksham
Pandey, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
07/08/2025
1. Present writ petition has been filed impugning the order
dated 23.05.2025 passed by the respondents, whereby the
objection notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(for short ‘Act of 1961’) has been disposed of.
2. Brief facts need to be noted are that the petitioner is a
Company engaged in the business of trading in shares and
securities. It had filed return for assessment year 2011-2012
which was scrutinized under Section 143(2) of the Act of 1961.
Notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was served on the
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:59:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30642-DB] (2 of 7) [CW-11782/2025]
petitioner-Company upon disclosure of bogus share loss
transaction and reasons were supplied to the assessee vide letter
dated 26.09.2016 pointing out that the assessee was one of the
beneficiaries who received bogus share, which was on the basis of
their admittedly accommodation entries in the form of bogus
LTCG. Upon recording of statement of such promoters/Directors
under Section 132(4) of the Act and upon duly conducting survey/
search operations, it was found that the assessee was one of such
beneficiaries and, therefore, a notice under Section 148 of the Act
of 1961 providing the reasons was issued on 27.09.2016 of
escapement of tax assessment worth income of
Rs.23,02,91,301./-. Objections and reply to the notice were filed
by the petitioner-Company wherein, after raising objections to
maintainability of the assessment proceedings under Section 148
of the Act, to submit detailed reply, the documents may be
provided.
3. Based on such reply, the respondents passed an order
disposing of the objections and rejected the same. It was also
stated that so far as details of information with regard to survey
and search are concerned, the same cannot be entertained at the
said stage.
4. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner-Company preferred S.B.Civil
Writ Petition No.7463/2017- Sandeep Stocks Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., which came to
be decided on 12.02.2025 and this Court proceeded to set aside
the order dated 17.02.2017 and remitted the matter back to the
respondents to decide the objections in accordance with law after
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:59:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30642-DB] (3 of 7) [CW-11782/2025]
considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN
Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors.-
259 IRT Page 19. Personal hearing was also directed to be
given to the petitioner-Company in terms of the directions of the
High Court in Sandeep Stocks Pvt. Ltd. (supra) dated
12.02.2025. The respondents proceeded to dispose of the
objections raised on 02.02.2017 and also at the same time,
provided the available material sought by the assessee. Having
received the entire documents as demanded, the petitioner-
Company with the purpose to delay the proceedings, has again
preferred writ petition and submits that the Court intended the
petitioner-Company to allow it to again make objection after
receiving the documents. The petitioner submits that despite
specific directions, the respondents have failed to produce any
material evidence or recorded the material linking the petitioner-
Company and there was no reason which was available or
recorded for initiating re-assessment. The petitioner further
submits that respondents were seeking to reopen the concluded
assessment solely on the basis of third-party allegations and that
no tangible nexus existed between the petitioner-Company and
the purported entry operators.
5. We have considered the submissions and find that the
petitioner-Company has been avoiding the proceedings under
Section 148 of the Act of 1961 initiated against it with reference to
assessment year 2011-2012 on 26.09.2016. Section 148 of the of
the Act of 1961 as it stood provided as under:-
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:59:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30642-DB] (4 of 7) [CW-11782/2025]
“148. Issue of notice where income has escaped
assessment.- Before making the assessment,
reassessment or recomputation under section 147,
and subject to the provisions of section 148A, the
Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a
notice, along with a copy of the order passed, if
required, under clause (d) of section 148A, requiring
him to furnish within a period of three months from
the end of the month in which such notice is issued,
or such further period as may be allowed by the
Assessing Officer on the basis of an application made
in this regard by the assessee, a return of his income
or the income of any other person in respect of which
he is assessable under this Act during the previous
year corresponding to the relevant assessment year,
in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed
manner and setting forth such other particulars as
may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act
shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such
return were a return required to be furnished under
section 139:
Provided that no notice under this section shall be
issued unless there is information with the Assessing
Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to
tax has escaped assessment in the case of the
assessee for the relevant assessment year and the
Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the
specified authority to issue such notice:
Provided further that no such approval shall be
required where the Assessing Officer, with the prior
approval of the specified authority, has passed an
order under clause (d) of section 148A to the effect
that it is a fit case to issue a notice under this
section:
Provided also that any return of income, required to
be furnished by an assessee under this section and
furnished beyond the period allowed shall not be
deemed to be a return under Section 139.
Explanation 1.–For the purposes of this section and
section 148A, the information with the Assessing
Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to
tax has escaped assessment means,–
(i) any information in the case of the assessee for the
relevant assessment year in accordance with the risk
management strategy formulated by the Board from
time to time; or(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:59:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30642-DB] (5 of 7) [CW-11782/2025]
(ii) any audit objection to the effect that the
assessment in the case of the assessee for the
relevant assessment year has not been made in
accordance with the provisions of this Act; or
(iii) any information received under an agreement
referred to in section 90 or section 90A of the Act; or
(iv) any information made available to the Assessing
Officer under the scheme notified under section
135A; or
(v) any information which requires action in
consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court; orExplanation 2.–For the purposes of this section,
where,–
(i) a search is initiated under section 132 or books of
account, other documents or any assets are
requisitioned under section 132A, on or after the 1st
day of April, 2021, in the case of the assessee; or
(ii) a survey is conducted under section 133A, other
than under sub-section (2A) of that section, on or
after the 1st day of April, 2021, in the case of the
assessee; or
(iii) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior
approval of the Principal Commissioner or
Commissioner, that any money, bullion, jewellery or
other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned
under section 132 or section 132A in case of any
other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021,
belongs to the assessee; or
(iv) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior
approval of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,
that any books of account or documents, seized or
requisitioned under section 132 or section 132A in
case of any other person on or after the 1st day of
April, 2021, pertains or pertain to, or any information
contained therein, relate to, the assessee, the
Assessing Officer shall be deemed to have
information which suggests that the income
chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the
case of the assessee [where] the search is initiated
or books of account, other documents or any assets
are requisitioned or survey is conducted in the case
of the assessee or money, bullion, jewellery or other
valuable article or thing or books of account or
documents are seized or requisitioned in case of any
other person.
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:59:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30642-DB] (6 of 7) [CW-11782/2025]
Explanation 3.–For the purposes of this section,
specified authority means the specified authority
referred to in section 151.”
Thus, the only aspect which is to be looked into at this stage
is whether the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment,
since the objection of the petitioner-Company was that the
material has not been found to it which was the basis of arriving
to the satisfaction and the Court allowed to raise the said
objection, the authorities cannot be said to find out any error in
disposing of the original documents made by it on 02.02.2017 and
also supplying it with the said disposal order, the material which
was relied upon for the purposes of arriving to the satisfaction of
the escapement of income of the assessee. The assessee,
therefore, cannot be allowed to state now that the details have
been provided to it only alongwith the order passed. The order,
therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court. It may
be noticed that earlier judgment passed by this Court in Sandeep
Stocks Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was challenged by the petitioner-
Company before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.10014/2025
where the Supreme Court passed following order:-
“1. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and having gone through the materials on record,
we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the High Court.
2. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
3. However, all questions of law are kept open to be
canvassed before the authority concerned including the
issue of limitation.
4. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.”
6. In view thereof, we do not find any reason to interfere with
the order passed by the respondents and leave the
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:59:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30642-DB] (7 of 7) [CW-11782/2025]
petitioner-Company in terms of the directions of the Supreme
Court to canvass all its arguments before the authority concerned.
7. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
NAVAL KISHOR /83
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 09:59:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)