JUDGMENT :

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge raised in this Writ Petition is to the notice dated 24/3/2020 that has been issued by the Income Tax Officer Ward – 1, Akola under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act of 1961”). A further consequential prayer seeks quashing of the assessment that has been completed by virtue of order dated 29/9/2021.

3. The challenge raised to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 is principally on the grounds that the said notice has been issued on incorrect facts, no reasons have been given while deciding the objections raised by the petitioner to the re-opening of the proceedings and the same have been decided without passing any speaking order. In addition, it is urged that the re-opening of the proceedings is without there being any independent application of mind and no reasons to believe have been indicated by the Income Tax Officer (for short “ITO”) in that regard.

4. The facts relevant for considering the challenge are that on 24/3/2020, the ITO issued notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 stating therein that he had reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2013-14 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act of 1961. The petitioner was accordingly called upon to deliver a return in the prescribed form for the said Assessment Year within a period of thirty days from service of the notice. The reasons for re-opening of the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act of 1961 as indicated were that from the information received and enquiry as made, it was clear that the assessee – petitioner had made investment in the purchase of shares and had earned profit from the sale of shares. The petitioner however had not offered for taxation the amount of income earned on the sale of shares of Rs.9,90,314/-. Thus, the petitioner had failed to disclose his true and correct total income while filing the return of income for the said year. As period of more than four years had lapsed from the end of the Assessment Year, sanction to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 had been obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 151 of the Act of 1961. On 23/2/2021, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act of 1961 came to be issued calling upon the petitioner to furnish the details of the bank account and documents as referred to in the Annexure therein. The bank account statement of the petitioner’s account maintained with the HDFC Bank for the period from 1/4/2012 to 31/3/2013 was sought by the ITO. Thereafter, on 24/5/2021, similar notice under Section 142(1) of the Act of 1961 was issued seeking information with regard to each debit and credit entry exceeding Rs.50,000/- in the bank account of the petitioner maintained with the HDFC Bank. The petitioner responded to the said notices and supplied the documents demanded. On 24/8/2021, further notice under Section 142(1) of the Act of 1961 was issued in which it was stated that after perusing the bank statement, it was noticed that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was credited in the petitioner’s account and on the next day, an amount of Rs.9,90,314/- was debited towards AA+ Commodities. The justification for the same was sought. The petitioner responded to the said query by stating that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- had been received from Mayur Agro Trade Private Limited and he had not purchased any shares from the said Company. On 10/9/2021, yet another notice under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 of the Act of 1961 was issued to the petitioner and the reasons for reopening the case were indicated that amount of Rs.9,90,314/- being the amount of income earned on the sale of shares had not been offered for taxation. On 13/9/2021, the petitioner responded to the said notice stating therein that the amount of Rs.9,90,314/- had not been credited in the