IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[S.C.R. ORDER RULE XXI RULE 3(1)(a)]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL.) NO. OF 2024
(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)
(AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED
10.11.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW
DELHI IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2722 OF 2023)

IN THE MATTER OF
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD -46(6) DELHI & ANR ...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

SHALINI
GUPTA ...RESPONDENT

PAPER BOOK

{FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE}

 ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

INDEX
S. Particulars of Document Page no. of Part to Remark
No. which it belongs s
Part I Part II
(Conten (Contents of
ts of the file alone)
Paper
Book)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
1. Court Fees
2 O/R on Limitation A A
3 Listing Performa A1-A2 A2
4 Cover Page of Paper Book A3
5 Index of Record of A4
Proceedings
6 Limitation Report prepared A5
by the Registry
7 Defect List A6
8 Note Sheet A7
9 Synopsis with List of Dates
10 Impugned Judgement And
Final Order Dated
10.11.2023
11. SLP with Affidavit
12 ANNEXURE-P1
Copy of the Income-tax
returned forum filed for A.Y
2016-17
13 ANNEXURE-P-2
Copy of the search and
seizure action report U/s 132
14 ANNEXURE-P-3
Copy of the statement
recorded u/s 131(1 A) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 dated
31.01.2019
15 ANNEXURE-P-4
Copy of the statement
recorded u/s 131(1 A) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 dated
01.02.2019
16. ANNEXURE-P-5
Copy of the ordinance issued
in 2020
17. ANNEXURE-P-6
Copy of the initial notice
u/s 148 dated 24th May
2021
18. ANNEXURE-P-7
Copy of the order u/s
148A(d) passed on
 31.07.2022
18 ANNEXURE-P-8
Copy of the notice u/s 148 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961
issued on 31.07.2022
19. ANNEXURE-P-9
Copy of the Writ Petition
No. 2722 of 2023, filed
before Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi.
20. F/M
21. V/A
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[S.C.R. ORDER RULE XXI RULE 3(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL.) NO. OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD -46(6) DELHI & ANR ..PETITIONERS

VERSUS
SHALINI GUPTA... ..RESPONDENT

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The petition is/are within time.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is a delay of days in filing the
Special Leave Petition against the impugned judgment and Final order
dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition No. 2722 of 2023 and the petition for condonation
of days delay has been filed.
3. There is a delay of days in re-filing the petition and the petition for
condonation of days delay in re-filing has been filed.

BRANCH OFFICER
Dated:
 SYNOPSIS
That the Petitioners herein respectfully submit this petition seeking Special
Leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and final order dated
10.11.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ
Petition No. 2722 Of 2023 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that orders
passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequent notices issued under Section
148 of the amended 1961 Act, concerning AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18 cannot
be sustained.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE LEADING TO THE PRESENT

PETITION ARE
I. That the brief facts of the case as narrated is that the income tax
department has a system of collecting information from various sources.
The information collected is mainly regarding bank deposits, investments
in mutual funds, shares, credit card expenditure, sale/purchase of
immoveable property, deduction of Tax at Source by payers of amount,
foreign remittances, custom duties paid, service tax paid, other high-value
transactions, etc. After collection of information from various sources, the
information is forwarded to jurisdictional Assessing Officers for taking
further necessary action in the cases in which information is received.
II. The Respondent is an individual assessee under the Income Tax Act. The
assessee filed her ITR for A.Y. 2016-17 on 25.03.2017 at income of Rs.
4,19,720/-. A Search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act
1961, was carried out in the case of Shri Pankaj Goel based on
unexplained cash amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- found in possession of Sh.
Pankaj Goel. The enquiries in this case establish that Sh. Pankaj Goel was
part of an entity named M/s Asian Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd., which had
 facilitated claims of bogus long-term capital gains for various clients in
lieu of cash. It has also been established that the contract notes/bills
regarding the purchase of shares were fabricated and these shares were
purchased through the stock market, by entry-operator controlled and the
same were transferred to the account of the assessee-beneficiary within a
few days of purchase by way of off-market transfers, using accounts
controlled and managed by entry providers, from where it was sold within
a few days.
III. It was further stated by Sh. Pankaj that he was working as a share broker
in M/s Asian Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd. and had collected cash of Rs.
25,00,000/- from his clients and regularly routed cash in the form of
accommodation entries to the bank account of M/s Asian Bulls Capital
Pvt. Ltd. Similar accommodation entries have been found to have been
arranged for a large number of assessees. What differs in this scam, is that
the shares being purchased, transferred, and sold are not the usual penny
stocks, but shares of well-known running companies.
IV. During further investigation, it was found that Sh. Deepak Goel, the brother
of Sh. Pankaj Goel was overseeing and directing operations at M/s Asian
Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd. During questing on 31.01.2019. under section u/s
131(1 A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Sh. Deepak Goel admitted that the
transactions in the company i.e. M/s Asian Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd was
orchestrated under the guidance of another share broker Sh. Vikas Gupta,
who was also a director in M/s AVSL Securities Pvt. Ltd.
V. It was further admitted by him that the sale/purchase of the shares in Asian
Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd. was done by cash, which was routed in the account
of M/s Asian Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd. in the form of RTGS via shell
companies/concerns operated by accommodation entry providers. These
 funds were then used to buy the shares of reputed companies, which were
then transferred to the DEMAT account of the beneficiaries within a few
days of purchase, via off-market transfers.
VI. Moreover, Sh. Deepak Goel also admitted to furnishing ante-dated contract
notes to clients, which were then used by the clients to claim bogus long-
term capital gain on the shares, which were actually purchased a few days
before the sale of the shares and held in the DEMAT account for only a few
days.
VII. In light of Sh. Deepak Goel admission, a survey u/s 133(A) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on M/s AVSL Securities Pvt. Ltd., M/s Asian
Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Vagabound Tradex Pvt. Ltd. on 01.02.2019
at the premises 802, 8th Floor, GDITL Tower, A-9 Building, Netaji Subhash
Place, New Delhi.
VIII. During the course of the survey statement of Sh. Vikas Gupta, director in
M/S AVSL Securities Pvt. Ltd. was taken on oath u/s 131(1 A) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961. In his statement, Sh. Vikas Gupta corroborated Sh.
Deepak Goel's admission, acknowledging receipt of cash from clients
interested in purchasing shares in cash. He also explained that the cash
taken from clients was introduced into their companies i.e. M/s Asian Buils
Capital Pvt. Ltd., M/s Vagabound Tradex Pvt. Ltd., M/s Kinshuk Stock
Brokers, etc. through the accommodation entry providers for a commission
of 0.25 to 0.50 %.
IX. Subsequently, the RTGS received in the bank accounts of M/s Asian Bulls
Capital Pvt. Ltd., M/s Vagabound Tradex Pvt. Ltd., M/s Kinshuk Stock
Brokers, etc. were utilized to purchase shares of reputed companies through
the registered stock brokers. These shares were then transferred off-market
to the DEMAT account of the clients/ beneficiaries. Sh. Vikas Gupta also
 admitted that the documents relating to the purchase of these shares were
prepared by Sh. Deepak Goel to enable the clients to claim bogus capital
gains/ loss and also admitted that they had received a commission of l-
L5%for facilitating these transactions.
X. That it is pertinent to mention that the individual in question has sought to
bring his unaccounted money into his regular books and/or convert his
unaccounted money into camouflaged capital gain/loss and claiming it to be
exempt u/s 10(38), or setting of such bogus loss against genuine taxable
profits. Through enquiries conducted and the admission of the entry
operators of the scheme, it has been established that the contract note/bills
for the purchase of these shares are fabricated, the shares were purchased
through the stock market by an entry-operator-controlled entity immediately
before the ultimate sale by the assessee-beneficiary, further, it was
transferred to the account of the assessee-beneficiary within a few days of
purchase by way of off-market transfers, using accounts controlled and
managed by entry providers, subsequently sold within a short period.
XI. Unaccounted money, in cash, was utilized for these arranged purchases of
shares, from the market. Which were then transferred through one or a
series of layers to the Demat account of the beneficiary assessee.
Subsequently, the beneficiary assessee sold the shares on the market, paying
STT, and received sales consideration through the banking channel.
XII. That the entry providers arranged/furnished bogus, antedated contract notes,
showing the purchases long lime back on a fictitious date (at the then
prevailing rates). The sales consideration was reduced by the concocted cost
of acquisition, allowing the beneficiary to claim exemption on the resultant
gains. In case of loss, such loss is set off against the taxable profits.
Consequently, unaccounted money was integrated into the books through
 fictitious and sham transactions, evading rightful taxation. Additionally, a
commission, typically around 1-1.5% of the unaccounted money, was
expended to procure the fabricated contract notes and accommodation
entries.
XIII. During the year under consideration, on perusal of information received, it
is revealed that the assessee had purchased 10,000 shares of TVS Motor
Company Ltd. and 1550 shares of Yes Bank Limited Equity Shares for the
aggregating amount to Rs.39,74,293/-. It is noted that the assessee has filed
her return of income for the year under consideration. However, the
requisite material facts as noted above were embedded in such a manner
that material evidence could not be discovered. As such, it is evident that
while filing the return of income, the assessee had presented incorrect
details leading to escapement of taxable income of Rs.39,74,293/-.”
XIV. It is submitted that the notice issued U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
was sent on 24.05.2021. In compliance with the order of Hon'ble Supreme
Court dated 04.05.2022 in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish
Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 30/05/2022), the notice issued in the case of the
assessee for AY 2016-17 between the period 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021
had been held to be a Show Cause Notice u/s 148A(b) of the Income Tax
Act. 1961 (as substituted by the Finance Act. 2021).
XV. That the reply of the assessee on the limitation of time for the issue of
notice u/s 148 was considered. However, in accordance with the aforesaid
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court read with time extension provided
by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of
Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) and various notifications issued
there under the extended reassessment notices would be allowed to travel
back in time to their original date when such notices were to be issued and
 then new section 149 of the Act was to apply at that point.
XVI. Furthermore, in this case, it was concluded that the assessee has made the
transaction in shares through M/s Asian Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd. amounting
to Rs.39,74,296/- during F.Y.2016-17 (A.Y. 2011-18) through manipulated
trading and it is ascertained that the same is the unaccounted income of the
assessee and has escaped assessment. An order u/s 148A(d) was passed on
31.07.2022 and notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on
31.07.2022.
XVII. Subsequently, the assessee filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi challenging the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 and the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.07.2022 for the AY 2016-17. The Hon'ble
High Court in a common order disposing of various Writ Petitions
concerning AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 that orders passed under Section
148A(d) and the consequent notices issued under Section 148 of the
amended 1961 Act, concerning AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18 cannot be
sustained and the reference made in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 (ii) of the
Instruction dated 11.05.2022, to the extent it propounds the "travel back in
time" theory, was declared bad in law.
That aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner prefers the present special
leave to appeal upon the grounds as mentioned in the Petition.

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

DATE EVENT

25.03.2017 The Respondent is an assessee under the Act. The assessee filed her
ITR for A.Y. 2016-17 on 25.03.2017 at income of Rs. 4,19,720/-. A
 Search and seizure action u/s 132 was carried out in the case of Shri
Pankaj Goel based on unexplained cash amounting to
Rs.25,00,000/- found in possession of Sh. Pankaj Goel.
A true copy of the Income-tax returned forum filed for A.Y 2016-
17 is annexed herein and marked as ANNEXURE P-1
A true copy of the search and seizure action report U/s 132 is
annexed herein and marked as ANNEXURE P-2

31.01.2019 During further enquiries, it was found that Sh. Deepak Goel,
brother of Sh. Pankaj Goel was managing and controlling the
company M/s Asian Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd. In view of the same, Sh.
Deepak Goel was further examined on 31.01.2019.
In his statement recorded u/s 131(1 A) of the Income Tax Act,
1961, Sh. Deepak Goel admitted that the transactions in the
company i.e. M/s Asian Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd was done at the
behest of another share broker Sh. Vikas Gupta, who was also a
director in M/s AVSL Securities Pvt. Ltd.
He also admitted that the sale/purchase of the shares in Asian Bulls
Capital Pvt. Ltd. was done by cash, which was routed in the
account of M/s Asian Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd. in the form of RTGS
through shell companies/concerns operated by accommodation
entry providers. These funds were then used to buy the shares of
reputed companies, which were then transferred to the DEMAT
account of the beneficiaries within a few days of purchase by off-
market transfers. Sh. Deepak Goel also admitted to having provided
ante-dated contract notes to his clients, which were then used by the
clients to claim bogus long-term capital gain on the shares, which
 was actually purchased a few days before the sale of the shares and
held in the DEMAT account for only a few days.
A true copy of the statement recorded u/s 131(1 A) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.01.2019 is annexed herein and marked as
ANNEXURE P-3

01.02.2019 In view of the admission of Sh. Deepak Goel, a survey u/s 133(A)
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on M/s AVSL
Securities Pvt. Ltd., M/s Asian Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd. and M/s
Vagabound Tradex Pvt. Ltd. on 01.02.2019 at the premises 802, 8th
Floor, GDITL Tower, A-9 Building, Netaji Subhash Place, New
Delhi. During the course of the survey statement of Sh. Vikas
Gupta, director in M/S AVSL Securities Pvt. Ltd. was taken on oath
u/s 131(1 A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In his statement
recorded u/s 131(1 A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the
course of survey proceedings, Sh. Vikas Gupta also admitted that
the Sh. Deepak Goel received the cash from the clients who were
interested in purchasing shares in cash. He also explained that the
cash taken from clients was introduced into their companies i.e. M/s
Asian Buils Capital Pvt. Ltd., M/s Vagabound Tradex Pvt. Ltd.,
M/s Kinshuk Stock Brokers, etc. through the accommodation entry
providers for a commission of 0.25 to 0.50 %.
The RTGS received in the bank accounts of M/s Asian Bulls
Capital Pvt. Ltd., M/s Vagabound Tradex Pvt. Ltd., M/s Kinshuk
Stock Brokers, etc. was then used to purchase shares of reputed
companies through the registered stock brokers. The shares were
then transferred off-market to the DEMAT account of the clients/
 beneficiaries. He also admitted that the documents relating to the
purchase of these shares were prepared by Sh. Deepak Goel to
enable the clients to claim bogus capital gains/ loss and also
admitted that they had received a commission of l-L5%for
facilitating these transactions.
A true copy of the statement recorded u/s 131(1 A) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 dated 01.02.2019 is annexed herein and marked as
ANNEXURE P-4

2020 It is to be noted that the TOLA was preceded by an ordinance

issued under article 123 of the constitution titled Taxation and
others laws (relaxation and amendment of certain provisions)
Ordinance, 2020, and by the way of this ordnances the extension of
the timelines was granted, beside this the 2020 ordnances made an
amendment to the 1961 Act and other statues, which resulted, inter
alia, in the extension of time limits in those statutes as well.
Further by virtue of the provision of the 2020 ordinance the
limitation for proceeding and compliances referred to in section
3(1) was extended to 30.06.2020.
A true copy of the ordinance issued in 2020 is annexed herein and
marked as ANNEXURE P-5

24.06.2020 Furthermore, vide notification No.35 of 2020 dated 24.06.2020

issued under the ordinance extended the end date to 31.03.2021
where the due date/limitation under the Specified Acts qua
proceedings and compliances referred to in Section 3(1) of the 2020
Ordinance fell within the period spanning between 20.03.2020 to
 31.12.2020.

31.12.2020 A press release dated 30.12.2020 was issued which apart from the
1961 act referred to other statutes as well. The notification dated
31.12.2020 provided that the end date from limitation would be
31.03.2021, the point of inflection The point of inflection, however,
came about with the CBDT issuing two (02) Notifications, i.e.,
Notification No.20 of 2021 dated 31.03.2021 and Notification
No.38 of 2021 dated 27.04.2021.
Insofar as the Notification dated 31.03.2021 was concerned, it
shifted
the end date prescribed for the expiration of limitation as per the
provisions of Section 149 of the 1961 Act, to 30.04.2021,
concerning the notices issued under Section 148, the due date for
which fell within the period spanning between 20.03.2020 and
31.03.2021.
Likewise, the Notification dated 27.04.2021 extended the limitation
period to 30.06.2021 for notices issued under Section 148 of the
1961 Act, the due date for which fell between 20.03.2020 and
30.04.2021.

24.05.2021 Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was sent on 24.05.2021.
In compliance with the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
04.05.2022 in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal
(Civil Appeal No. 30/05/2022), the notice issued in the case of the
assessee for AY 2016-17 between the period 01.04.2021 and
30.06.2021 had been held to be a Show Cause Notice u/s 148A(b) of
 the Income Tax Act. 1961 (as substituted by the Finance Act. 2021).
A true copy of the initial notice u/s 148 dated 24th May 2021 is
annexed and marked as ANNEXURE P-6.

31.07.2022 In this case, it was concluded that the assessee has made the
transaction in shares through M/s Asian Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd.
amounting to Rs.39,74,296/- during F.Y.2016-17 (A.Y. 2011-18)
through manipulated trading and it is ascertained that the same is the
unaccounted income of the assessee and has escaped assessment. An
order u/s 148A(d) was passed on 31.07.2022 and notice u/s 148 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 31.07.2022.
A true copy of the order u/s 148A(d) passed on 31.07.2022 is
annexed and marked as ANNEXURE P-7.
A true copy of the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
issued on 31.07.2022 is annexed herein and marked as
ANNEXURE P-8.

2023 The assessee filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
challenging the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 and the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.07.2022 for the AY 2016-17.
A true copy of the Writ Petition No. 2722 OF 2023 filed before the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is marked and annexed as
ANNEXURE P-9.

10.11.2023 Impugned Judgement and Final order dated 10.11.2023 passed by

the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition No.
2722 Of 2023,
 Hence, this Special Leave Petition.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[S.C.R. ORDER RULE XXI RULE 3(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL.) NO. OF 2024
(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)
(AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED
10.11.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW
DELHI IN WRIT PETITION NO.7 2722 OF 2023)

IN THE MATTER OF POSITION IN HIGH POSITION IN THIS

COURT COURT

INCOME TAX RESPONDENT NO.1 PETITIONER NO.1

OFFICER, WARD -46(6)
DELHI
E-2 BLOCK, CIVIC
CENTRE, MINTO
ROAD,
NEW DELHI – 110002
 PR. COMMISSIONER RESPONDENT NO.2 PETITIONER NO.2
OF INCOME TAX
E-2 BLOCK, CIVIC
CENTRE, MINTO
ROAD,
NEW DELHI – 110002

VERSUS

SHALINI GUPTA PETITIONER RESPONDENT

H-231, JEEWAN
NIKETAN LIC
COLONY, NEW DELHI
110087

TO,
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONER ABOVE-NAMED.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

1. That the Petitioners herein respectfully submit this petition seeking special
leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and final order dated
10.11.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ
 Petition No. 2722 Of 2023 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that
orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequent notices issued under
Section 148 of the amended 1961 Act, concerning AY 2016-17 and AY
2017-18 cannot be sustained.
2. QUESTIONS OF LAW
That the substantial questions of law that would arise for consideration of
this Hon’ble Court in the present petition are as follows:
I. Whether the Hon’ble High Court disregarded the binding precedent set
by the Supreme Court, leading to an erroneous conclusion.
II. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the
Hon’ble High Court erred in admitting the Writ Petition against the order
under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 of the Act
without considering that alternative remedies available to the
respondent(assessee) were not exhausted.
III. Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in entertaining the Writ Petition
despite the fact this Hon’ble Court has reiterated that if efficacious
alternate remedy is available then writ petition cannot be entertained by
the High Court. Reliance is placed on the judgments of Thansingh
Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419, Titagarh
Paper Mills Co. vs. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433 and
Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. Vs. Chhabil Dass Agrawal
(2014) 1 SCC 603.
IV. Whether the Hon’ble High Court overlooks the fact that the notices were
issued as per various instructions of the CBDT, New Delhi and
considering that the date of limitation of issuing the notice got extended
by the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and
Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), and further vide
 Notification No: 20/2021 dated 31.03.2021 and Notification No: 38/2021
dated 27.04.2021, which extend the time for reassessment notices and
allow for the application of the amended section 149 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961.
V. Whether the Hon’ble High Court failed to take into consideration that the
respondent's association with M/s Asian Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd., known
for facilitating bogus long-term capital gains through accommodation
entries, raises questions regarding the legitimacy of her reported income
for Assessment Year 2016-17 and further failure to disclose her
involvement in her ITR for assessment year constitutes a violation of
statutory obligations under the Income Tax.
VI. Whether the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider that this Hon’ble
Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agrawal, (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC)
has held that the benefit of the Finance at, 2021 would apply even for
previous assessment years, which would automatically mean that the
time extension provided by TLA Act will allow extended reassessment
notices to travel back in the time to their original date when such
notices were to be issued and then section 149 of the amended regime
is to be applied at that point of time?
VII. Whether the Hon’ble High Court overlooked the Search and seizure
action conducted under section 132 provides sufficient grounds to
reassess the respondent's income for Assessment Year 2016-17,
considering the evidence linking M/s Asian Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd. with
fraudulent financial activities.
VIII. Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred by not taking into consideration
the transaction in shares through M/s Asian Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd.
represents unaccounted income escaping assessment for Assessment
 Year 2017-18 is supported by sufficient evidence and complies with the
principles of natural justice?
IX. Whether the Hon’ble High Court failed to take into consideration the
adverse consequences on public interest and revenue collection efforts.
The invalidated reassessment proceedings are essential for detecting and
addressing instances of tax evasion and ensuring compliance with the
provisions of the Income Tax Act.
X. Whether or not the Hon’ble High Court failed to take into consideration
that case falls in the exceptions laid down in circular no.03/2018.
XI. Whether on facts and circumstances and in the light of CBDT instruction
dated 11/05/2022, the Hon'ble Delhi High is correct in holding in the
instant case "... that the impugned actions, which include orders passed
under Section 148A(d) and the consequent notices issued under Section
148 of the amended 1961 Act, concerning AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18
cannot be sustained
XII. Whether on facts and circumstances and in the light of CBDT instruction
dated 11/05/2022, the Hon'ble Delhi High is correct in holding in the
instant case " Furthermore, the reference made in paragraphs 6.1 and
6.2(ii) of the Instruction dated 11.05.2022, to the extent it propounds the
"travel back in time" theory, is declared bad in law.
XIII. Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in holding that the instructions
are contrary to law when the CBDT Instruction No: 01/2022 is in line
with the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Union of India v. Ashish
Agrawal, (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC)

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3 (2):

The Petitioners have not filed any other petition seeking special leave to
 appeal against the impugned judgment and final order dated 10.11.2023
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition
No. 2722 Of 2023.
4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:
The Annexures P-1 to P- produced along with the Special Leave Petition
are true copies of the pleadings/ documents, which formed part of the
records of the case in the Hon’ble High Court against whose final order,
leave to appeal is sought for in this Petition.

5. GROUNDS
The Petitioners prefer the present special leave to appeal upon the following
from amongst other grounds, which are taken without prejudice to one
another:
A. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court erred in dismissing the reopening of
the tax proceeding against the respondent herein for the assessment year
2016-17.
B. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court erred in admitting the Writ Petition
against the order under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section
148 of the Act without considering that alternative remedies available to
the respondent(assessee) were not exhausted. Furthermore, by
entertaining the Writ Petition the Hon’ble High Court overlooked the
fact this Hon’ble Court has reiterated that if efficacious alternate remedy
is available then the writ petition cannot be entertained by the High
Court. Reliance is placed on the judgments of Thansingh Nathmal v.
Superintendent of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419, Titagarh Paper Mills Co.
vs. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433 and Commissioner of Income
Tax and Ors. Vs. Chhabil Dass Agrawal (2014) 1 SCC 603.
C. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court erred Hon’ble High Court
overlooks the fact that the notices were issued as per various instructions
of the CBDT, New Delhi, and considering that the date of limitation of
issuing the notice got extended by the provisions of the Taxation and
Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act,
2020 (TOLA), and further vide Notification No: 20/2021 dated
31.03.2021 and Notification No: 38/2021 dated 27.04.2021, which
extend the time for reassessment notices and allow for the application of
the amended section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
D. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to take into consideration that
the respondent's association with M/s Asian Bulls Capital Pvt. Ltd.,
known for facilitating bogus long-term capital gains through
accommodation entries, raises questions regarding the legitimacy of her
reported income for Assessment Year 2016-17. This omission is
significant as it suggests that the Hon’ble High Court while considering
the fact did not fully assess the potential impact of the respondent’s
association on the credibility of her financial affairs. Furthermore,
failure to disclose her involvement in her ITR for the assessment year
constitutes a violation of statutory obligations under the Income Tax.it is
to be noted that taxpayers are obligated to provide accurate and
comprehensive information in their tax returns, including any pertinent
details about their financial activities and associations. The respondent's
failure to disclose her involvement with M/s Asian Bulls Capital Pvt.
Ltd. not only undermines the transparency of her financial affairs but
also raises concerns about potential tax evasion or misrepresentation
E. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to take into consideration that
the tax effect, in this case, is below the prescribed monetary limit as per
 CBDT circular no.3 /2018 dated 11.07.2018 R.W. circular no.17/2019
dated 08.08.2019 however the case falls in the exceptions as per para
10(b) of the amendment dated 20.08.2018 to the CBDT circular
no.03/2018 as “where board’s order, notification, instruction or circular
has been held to be illegal or ultra vires”. Therefore, notwithstanding the
tax effect being below the stipulated limit, the case falls within the ambit
of this exception. This exception warrants attention because it signifies
instances where the legality or validity of the governing rules or
regulations themselves come into question, necessitating further judicial
scrutiny and deliberation.
F. BECAUSE the Hon'ble High Court failed to consider the aspect that the
respondent cannot be permitted to bypass the circular procedure and
directly or indirectly escape from the fraud committed by her by not
providing the correct details about their financial activities and
associations and thereby tax evasion. It is pertinent to mention the
maxim Quando Aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per
obliquum which means “you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do
directly” The same has been time and again upheld by the Supreme
Court in multiple cases. the case of Supertech Limited v. Emerald
Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others, 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 3422 it was held by the court that:
“By describing an application as one for “clarification” or
“modification”, — though it is really one of review — a party Cannot
be permitted to circumvent or bypass the circulation Procedure and
indirectly obtain a hearing in the open court. What cannot be done
directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.”
G. BECAUSE the Hon'ble High Court failed to overlook the fact that the
assessee manipulated the income tax return and committed serious tax
evasion, this failure is compounded by the reliance on the argument that
the assessee's income fell below the 50-lakh threshold, a factor which
should not mitigate the seriousness of tax evasion under legal precedent.
Moreover, the High Court's reliance on an incorrect interpretation of the
new tax regime, purportedly designed to enhance the ease of doing
business for taxpayers, is legally flawed. Such misinterpretation
undermines the primary objective of tax laws, which is to ensure
compliance and fairness in the tax system, further, the High Court's
acceptance of a reduction in the time limit for issuing notices related to
assessment, reassessment, and re-computation as a means to expedite
procedures is very much concerning as it overlooks the proper
application of tax laws and the integrity of the tax administration system
thereby establishes a dangerous precedent and constitutes a misuse of
legal provisions.
H. BECAUSE the Hon'ble High Court has adjudicated that orders passed
under section 148A(d) and the consequent notices issued under section
148 of the amended Income Tax Act,1961 concerning AY 2016-17 and
AY 2017-18 cannot be sustained, which is in contravention to the
observations made and directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court
under Article 142 of the Constitution which was the subject matter of the
decision rendered in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal,
2022 SCC Online SC 543. Also, Court has declared the reference made
in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2(ii) of the Instruction dated 11.05.2022, to the
extent it propounds the "travel back in time" theory bad in law sidelining
the fact that the Instruction dated 11.05.2022 is infra vires the provisions
 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 3(1) of TOLA, read with the
directions contained in the Ashish Agarwal's case (supra)
I. BECAUSE the Hon'ble High Court has erred in not appreciating that the
CBDT's Instruction 01 of 2022 has been issued in accordance with the
provisions of law and is in consonance with the Hon'ble Supreme
Court's judgment in the case of UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal. The decision
in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal, 2022 SCC Online
SC 543 arose on account of several decisions of different High Courts.
The decisions records that approximately 90,000 such re-assessment
notices were issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 which stood
amended w.e.f. 01.04.2021, and that more than 9,000 writ petitions were
before the various High Courts across the country and that the High
Courts had taken a divergent view and that few High Courts had set
aside the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the IT
Act,1961 as time-barred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after examining
the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and
Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, and the notification issued
therein observed that as per the explanation to Notifications dated
31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 issued under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act,
the provisions as they existed prior to the amendment by the Finance
Act, 2021, shall apply to the reassessment proceedings initiated
thereunder. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal's
case ultimately held as follows: -
a. The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees
which were issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which
were the subject matter of writ petitions before the various respective
High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A
 of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed
or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The
assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the
respective assessees information and material relied upon by the
Revenue, so that the assesees can reply to the show-cause notices
within two weeks thereafter;
b. The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the
prior approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby
dispensed with as a one-time measure vis-à-vis those notices which
have been issued under section 148 of the unamended Act from
01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the
High Courts.
c. The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of section
148A(d) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; Thereafter
after following the procedure as required under section 148A may
issue notice under section 148 (as substituted);
d. All defences which may be available to the assesses including those
available under section 149 of the IT Act and all rights and
contentions which may be available to the concerned assessees and
Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be
available.
e. The present order shall substitute/modify respective judgments and
orders passed by the respective High Courts quashing the similar
notices issued under unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax
Act,1961 irrespective of whether they have been assailed before this
Court or not."
J. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court erred in not accepting the decision
of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of
Touchstone Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI & Ors. WPC No: 13102/2022
dated 09.09.2022 which held that the notice issued between the period of
01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 was legally valid and within the time frame.
The relevant part is as mentioned:
“11. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid facts put forth
are
disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated by a
writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
12. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and
Ors. v. Chhabil Das Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 has held that as
the Act of 1961 provides complete machinery for
assessment/reassessment of tax, the assessee is not permitted to
abandon that machinery and invoke writ jurisdiction of High
Court under Article 226. The present case does not fall under
the exceptional grounds on which a writ jurisdiction of the Court
can be invoked.
13. Further, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that the present proceedings are time barred is not
correct in the facts of the case, which pertains to AY 2013-2014
and reassessment proceedings were initiated during the time
limit extended by TOLA.
The time limit for issuing notice under unamended Section 149
which was falling from 20th March 2020 till 31st March 2021
was extended by Section 3 of TOLA read with Notification No.
20/2021 dated 31st March 2021, and Notification No. 38/2021
dated 27th April 2021, until 30th June, 2021.
14. The initial notice in the present proceedings was issued on
29th June 2021 i.e., extended time limit. The said notice was
quashed by this Court following its judgment in Mon Mohan
Kohli Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another,
reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5250 as the mandatory
procedure of Section 148A of the Act was not followed before
issuing the said notice. In the said judgment, this Court struck
down the Explanations A(a)(ii) and A(b) to the said
notifications. However, the relevant portion of the notification
which extended the time limit for issuance of time barring
reassessment notices until 30th June 2021 was not struck down
by this Court and in fact, this Court categorically held at
paragraph 98 that power of re- assessment that existed prior to
31st March 2021 stood extended till 30th June 2021.
Subsequently, Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal held that the
Section 148 notices issued between 1st April 2021 to 30th June
2021, will be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of
the Act and therefore the notice dated 29th June 2021, issued to
the petitioner stood revived.
15. Consequently, since the time period for issuance of
reassessment notice for assessment year 2013-14 stood extended
until 30th June 2021, the WPC 13102/2022 Page 9 of 10 first
proviso of Section 149 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2021) is
not attracted in the facts of this case. As noted above, the time
limit for initiating assessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 stood
 extended till 30th June 2021. The petitioner does not dispute the
said facts, consequently, the reassessment notice dated 29th
June 2021, which has been issued within the extended period of
limitation is not time barred.
16. The petitioner’s challenge to the paragraph 6.2. (i) of the
CBDT Instruction No. 1/2022 dated 11th May 2022 is not
maintainable. The contention of the petitioner that assessment
for AY 2013-14 became time barred on 31st March 2020 is
incorrect. The time period for assessment stood extended till
30th June 2021. The initial reassessment notice for AY 2013-14
has been issued to the petitioner within the said extended period
of limitation. The Supreme Court has declared that the said
reassessment notice be deemed as a notice issued under Section
148A of the Act and permitted Revenue to complete the said
proceedings. In this case, the income alleged to have escaped
assessment is more than 50 lakhs and therefore, the rigour of
Section 149(1)(b) of the Act (as amended by the Finance Act,
2021) has been satisfied.”
K. BECAUSE the Hon'ble High Court has erred in ignoring that the
view taken by it in the petitioner's case is contrary to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Salil Gulati vs. asst. CIT,
Circle-49(1), Delhi and Ors. (W.P.(C) 12541/2022 & CM
Appls.37959-377961/2022) and further its view taken vide order
dated 31.08.2022 wherein the court has upheld the validity of the
instruction no.01/2022 of the CBDT and this view was subsequently
endorsed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 7466/2023 dated
11.04.2023.
L. BECAUSE the Hon'ble High Court has erred in not appreciating that
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has vide order dated 31.08.2022 in the
case of Salil Gulati vs. Asst. CIT, Circle- 49(1), Delhi (cited supra)
has upheld the Department's stand that the decision of the Supreme
Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal 2022 SCC OnLine SC
543 read with the time extension provided by Taxation and Other
Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, .2020
(For short 'TOLA') allows extended reassessment notices to travel
back in time to their original date when such notices were to be issued
and then new section 149 of the Act is to be applied at that point.
M.BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to give due regard to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
& Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 30/05/2022), which
provided clarity on the legal implications of notices issued under
section 148A(b) and the applicability of the "travel back in time"
theory. The High Court's decision disregarded the binding precedent
set by the Supreme Court, leading to an erroneous conclusion.
N. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to adequately consider the
evidence presented by the assessing authority regarding the assessee's
involvement in manipulated trading through M/s Asian Bulls Capital
Pvt. Ltd., leading to an incorrect determination of the legality of the
reassessment proceedings.
O. BECAUSE upholding the Hon’ble High Court's decision would have
adverse consequences on public interest and revenue collection
efforts. The invalidated reassessment proceedings are essential for
detecting and addressing instances of tax evasion and ensuring
compliance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, it
 is necessary to protect the interests of the revenue authorities and
uphold the integrity of the tax system.
6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
That the Petitioners have set out all the relevant facts in detail in the
accompanying List of Dates and the Petitioners shall crave leave to refer to
and rely upon the same as if incorporated herein verbatim for the sake of
brevity. The Petitioners submit that the Petitioners have a good case on
merits and in all probability are likely to succeed before this Hon’ble Court.
The Petitioners state that they have made out a prima facie case on merits
and that the balance of convenience is also in its favor, therefore, it is
desirable in the interest of justice that during the pendency of proceedings in
this Hon’ble Court, the interim relief as prayed for herein to be granted or
else the Petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss.

7. MAIN PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to:
a. Grant Special Leave to Appeal Against the impugned Judgement and
final order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition No. 2722 Of 2023; And/Or
b. Pass any order or further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
a. Grant ad Interim Ex-Parte Stay of The Impugned Judgement and final
order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at
 New Delhi in Writ Petition No. 2722 Of 2023; And/ Or
b. Pass any order or further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS ARE DUTY

BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY:
DRAWN BY: FILED BY

Filed on: ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS

Place: New Delhi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[S.C.R. ORDER RULE XXI RULE 3(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL.) NO. OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD -46(6) DELHI & ANR ...PETITIONERS

VERSUS
SHALINI GUPTA ...RESPONDENT
 CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to pleading before the
High Court whose order is challenged and the documents relied upon in those
proceedings. No additional facts, documents, or grounds have been taken or
relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of
the documents/annexure attached to the special leave petition are necessary to
answer the question of law raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in
the special leave petition for the consideration of this Hon’ble Court. This
certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by the Petitioner
authorized by the SLP whose affidavit is filed in support of the SLP.
FILED BY: -

Filed on: ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS

Place: New Delhi