The central legal point established in the judgment is that reassessment proceedings must be based on an independent formation of opinion by the Assessing Officer and cannot be solely initiated on the basis of audit objections. The judgment emphasizes the requirement for an independent assessment of whether income has escaped assessment.

M.R. Shah, J.

1. By way of this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated August 13, 2013 (annexure A) issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") to reopen the original assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 as well as the order of reassessment passed. That the petitioner filed a return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on October 5, 2010, declaring a total income of Rs. 6,63,27,750. That the said return of income was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer completed the regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act after issuing/sending detailed questionnaire with the notice under section 142(1) and after considering the details submitted by the petitioner in response to the said notice.

1.1 That, thereafter, the respondent has issued the impugned notice dated August 13, 2013, under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11 to reassess the total income. That in response to the said notice, the petitioner, vide letter dated August 22, 2013, requested the Assessing Officer to treat the original return filed on October 5, 2010, as in response to the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act and also supplied copy of reasons recorded for reassessment.

1.2 That approximately, after a period of 11 months, vide communication dated July 8, 2014, the Assessing Officer supplied to the petitioner-assessee copy of reasons recorded. That the petitioner submitted the objections against reopening of the concluded and completed assessment, which came to be disposed of by the Assessing Officer, vide communication dated January 13, 2015. At this stage, the petitioner has preferred the present special civil application under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act to reopen the completed assessment for the assessment year 2010-11.

1.3 As during the pendency of the present petition, the Assessing Officer has passed the order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act read with section 147 of the Act, the petitioner has also challenged the impugned order of assessment also.

2. Shri Vivek Chavda, for Shri S.N. Divetia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that the reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 is solely on the basis of the audit objection and/or the audit objection by the audit party and, therefore, the same is not permissible. It is submitted that, therefore, forming opinion by the Assessing Officer that the income has escaped assessment has been vitiated.

2.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Chavda, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that though in the objections raised by the petitioner against reopening of the assessment, it was specifically stated that reopening of the assessment is at the instance of the audit party and/or on the audit objections raised by the audit party only, the Assessing Officer while disposing of the objections has not dealt with the same at all.

2.2 It is further submitted that even in the present special civil application though the petitioner has raised the specific ground on the aforesaid, in the affidavit-in-reply, the respondent has not dealt with the same.

Making the above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Division Bench in the case of CIT v. Shilp Gravures Ltd. reported in [2013] 40 taxmann.com 309 (Guj) as well as in the case of Raajratna Metal Industries Ltd. v. Asst. CIT reported in [2015] 371 ITR 222 (Guj) : [2014] 49 taxmann.com 15 (Guj), it is requested to allow the present special civil application and quash and set aside the impugned reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2010-11.

3. The present petition is opposed by Shri Pranav G. Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue. He has heavily relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the re