Summary: Radhika Roy and Dr. Prannoy Roy challenged reassessment notices from the Income Tax Department. The court found these notices unfair and canceled them, making the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 18(1) & Anr. pay a penalty.
On March 31, 2016, Radhika Roy got a notice about her 2009-2010 tax return, which she had originally filed on July 31, 2009, showing an income of ₹1,66,61,534. The tax department thought she hadn't reported all her income because of a suspicious share deal with RRPR Holding Private Limited, where she owned half of the company.
In July 2011, the department started looking into her taxes again, claiming Radhika Roy bought NDTV shares for less than what they were worth. Even though she provided all the necessary documents, including RRPR's audited balance sheet, the department decided her income was ₹3,17,39,480 in March 2013, without adding any extra tax for dividends.
Three years later, on March 31, 2016, Radhika Roy was surprised by another notice for the same tax year. This time, the department said that the interest-free loans she got from RRPR should count as income. The notice claimed she didn't report this as income in her tax return.
Radhika Roy's lawyer, Mr. Sachit Jolly, argued that the reassessment was based on the same facts as before and was therefore unfair. He pointed out that the initial proceedings had already dealt with the interest-free loan issue. On the other hand, the department, represented by Mr. N.P. Sahni, argued that new information justified looking into her taxes again.
The court, led by Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar, found the reassessment proceedings unfair. They noted that the same transaction had already been checked in 2013. The court emphasized that reassessments cannot be based on just changing opinions. As a result, the notices dated March 31, 2016, were canceled, and a penalty of ₹1,00,000 was imposed on the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 18(1) & Anr.
The court decided that the tax department couldn't keep reassessing Radhika Roy's taxes based on the same facts, protecting her rights as a taxpayer.
