S.R. Ashok Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

By CA Nikhil Gupta · Judgment date: 2022-06-01 · Delhi High Court

High CourtQuashed / set asidePUBLISH_READY

Important disclaimer

Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.

Source status: Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; the exact issuing-court primary record remains pending. Open packaged judgment PDF. This indexed page retains explicit official-source and later-history disclosures for reliance checks.

Case in 2 minutes

Hon’ble Delhi High Court set asides order u/s 148A(d) and Notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31-03-2022. (Writ Petition (C) 8238-2022) Annexure enclosed with the order u/s 148A(d) clearly recoded that assessee’s case was not fit for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. AO personally appeared before the court and said that Annexure was wrongly attached. Assessment of the party from whom accommodation entry was alleged was accepted by the department in scrutiny assessment.

Result: Quashed / set aside. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.

Case snapshot

Court / TribunalDelhi High Court

Case numberW.P.(C) 8238/2022 & C.M.No.24861/2022

Decision date2022-06-01

Assessment yearAY 2018-19

CoramHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN; HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

OutcomeQuashed / set aside

Sections / provisions: 148; 148A(d)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

Hon’ble Delhi High Court set asides order u/s 148A(d) and Notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31-03-2022. (Writ Petition (C) 8238-2022) Annexure enclosed with the order u/s 148A(d) clearly recoded that assessee’s case was not fit for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. AO personally appeared before the court and said that Annexure was wrongly attached. Assessment of the party from whom accommodation entry was alleged was accepted by the department in scrutiny assessment.
What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

JUDGMENT-GROUNDED CASE RECORD

Material facts and procedural background

$~188 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8238/2022 & C.M.No.24861/2022 S.R.ASHOK ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Mani Bhadra Jain with Mr.Sameer Sharma, Advocates. versus

Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) as well as the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 31st March, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 15th March, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 on the basis of information that the Petitioner had received unsecured loan from an accommodation entry provider M/s Sirsa Deposits and Advances Limited.

He states that the Petitioner filed a response along with documentary evidence on 22nd March, 2022 explaining that the Petitioner had received an unsecured loan of Rs.4,46,00,000/- from M/s Sirsa Deposit Advance Limited through proper banking channel and the same carried an interest of 7.5% per annum. He further states that the Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.4,34,922/- to M/s Sirsa Deposits and Advances Limited after deduction of TDS of Rs.48,325/-. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent in its order dated 31st March, 2022 had failed to take into consideration that Petitioner in its Audit Report for the Financial Year 2017-18 had declared that it had taken a loan from M/s Sirsa Deposits and Advances Limited. He states that the Respondent had further failed to take into consideration that Scrutiny Assessment of M/s Sirsa Deposits & Advances Limited for the Assessment Year 2018-19 was accepted at returned income on 16th April, 2021. Learned counsel for the Petitioner lastly states that an annexure was enclosed with the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act which clearly records that the case of the Petitioner is not a fit case for issuance of Notice under…

Appellant / assessee submissions

Revenue / respondent submissions

The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The reasoning is integrated into the packaged record. Read it with the facts, statutory text and operative directions; this editorial article does not invent missing reasons.

Operative decision and relief

March, 2022 are set aside and the matter is remanded back for a fresh decision. Accordingly, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, both dated 31st March, 2022, are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh reasoned decision in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition along with pending application stands disposed of. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

Official source and later-history control

Primary record: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING

Later-history status: REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING

High Court review, intra-court appeal where applicable, and Supreme Court SLP/appeal history remain to be closed.

Release decision: Published with a sanitized local judgment copy and explicit source disclosure; official-primary retrieval and later-history surveillance remain open. Checked 2026-08-11; page is published as index,follow with these limitations disclosed.

FININ2MIN ANALYSIS

Ratio and legal principle

The packaged judgment addresses Hon’ble Delhi High Court set asides order u/s 148A(d) and Notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31-03-2022. (Writ Petition (C) 8238-2022) Annexure enclosed with the order u/s 148A(d) clearly recoded that assessee’s case was not fit for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. AO personally appeared before the court and said that Annexure was wrongly attached. Assessment of the party from whom accommodation entry was alleged was accepted by the department in scrutiny assessment. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with hon’ble delhi high court set asides order u/s 148a(d) and notice u/s 148 of income tax act, 1961 dated 31-03-2022. (writ petition (c) 8238-2022) annexure enclosed with the order u/s 148a(d) clearly recoded that assessee’s case was not fit for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the act. ao personally appeared before the court and said that annexure was wrongly attached. assessment of the party from whom accommodation entry was alleged was accepted by the department in scrutiny assessment. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Can I rely on this judgment?

Authority level	High Court
Source integrity	Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; issuing-court primary pending
Repository release	PUBLISH_READY
Reliance rule	Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote.

Does this case match your facts?

Stronger match when

The same primary issue is raised.
The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
The material documentary record is substantially similar.

Weaker / distinguishable when

A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.

Questions this judgment answers

What was the main dispute in S.R. Ashok Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT?

Which facts matter most?

What did the Delhi High Court decide?

What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?

The packaged judgment addresses Hon’ble Delhi High Court set asides order u/s 148A(d) and Notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31-03-2022. (Writ Petition (C) 8238-2022) Annexure enclosed with the order u/s 148A(d) clearly recoded that assessee’s case was not fit for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. AO personally appeared before the court and said that Annexure was wrongly attached. Assessment of the party from whom accommodation entry was alleged was accepted by the department in scrutiny assessment. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Which provisions should be checked?

148, 148A(d)

When is the case most useful?

When the user's facts raise the same issue - Hon’ble Delhi High Court set asides order u/s 148A(d) and Notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31-03-2022. (Writ Petition (C) 8238-2022) Annexure enclosed with the order u/s 148A(d) clearly recoded that assessee’s case was not fit for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. AO personally appeared before the court and said that Annexure was wrongly attached. Assessment of the party from whom accommodation entry was alleged was accepted by the department in scrutiny assessment - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.

What could distinguish the case?

Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.

Can it be cited without another current-law check?

No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.