Delhi HC has set aside Income Tax Action against Rajat Sharma Owned India TV’s Parent Company Over Unaccounted Foreign Remittances
| ➡️ Get instant news updates on Whatsapp. Click here to join our Whatsapp Group. |
The Delhi High Court has set aside the reassessment proceedings initiated against Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd., the parent company of India TV, which is run by journalist Rajat Sharma. The reassessment was based on alleged foreign remittances that the Income Tax Department claimed had not been properly declared.
Background of the Case
In 2019, the Income Tax Department conducted a survey at J&K Bank. During the survey, the department claimed to have found records showing that Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. had made foreign remittances worth ₹6.5 crore during the 2017–18 assessment year. However, these amounts did not match the company’s official bank statements.
As a result, the department issued a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act on March 26, 2023, suggesting that the company’s income had escaped assessment.
Company’s Response
The company denied the allegations and submitted a confirmation from the bank, which clarified that the foreign remittance data mentioned in the notice did not belong to the company. They also pointed out that they had already declared an income of over ₹61 crore for the relevant assessment year (AY 2017–18), and the figures provided by the department were incorrect.
Despite this clarification, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under Section 148A(d), stating that foreign remittances worth ₹11.37 crore remained unexplained, which was even more than the amount mentioned in the original notice.
What the Court Observed
A division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia noted that the bank had issued confirmation stating that the remittance data did not relate to the petitioner-company. This raised serious questions about the credibility of the information used by the department to initiate the reassessment.
The Court further observed that the final reassessment order included allegations and figures that were not part of the original show cause notice (SCN). As per law, authorities cannot go beyond the scope of the notice, and doing so is considered procedurally incorrect.
Final Judgment
In view of the inconsistencies and procedural lapses, the High Court ruled that the reassessment order under Section 148A(d) was not sustainable and set it aside.
However, the Court clarified that if the Assessing Officer comes across any credible information in the future that proves income has escaped assessment, they can still issue a fresh notice—but only in accordance with the law.
