JUDGMENT :

Bhargav D. Karia, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned senior standing counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case which lies in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 28.03.2018 for reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2011-2012 issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short).

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

4.1 The petitioner is an authorised dealer of foreign exchange. For the Assessment Year (for short "A.Y.") 2011-2012, the petitioner submitted e-return of income declaring total income of Rs.4,37,543. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the petitioner submitted audit report and financial statement wherein profit and loss account under the caption "Expenditure", there was a debit of Rs. 36,53,147 under the head "Administrative and other Expenses", the break-up of which was at Schedule 10, wherein salary and bonus was stated to be Rs. 8,49,818. The notice dated 27.9.2012 under section 143(2) of the Act and notice dated 31.7.2013 under section 143(2) of the Act were issued by the Assessing Officer with annexure thereto inquiring about 19 items mentioned thereunder. As per item No.16, the petitioner was asked to furnish ledger copy of salary and wages expenses along with other three items. The petitioner furnished the details sought for by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer by letter dated 4.12.2013 called upon the petitioner to furnish further details which were supplied by the petitioner vide letter dated 12.12.2013, wherein copies of various expenditure accounts were submitted. The assessment order dated 31.1.2014 was passed under section 143(3) of the Act.

4.2 It is the case of the petitioner that after more than two years and nine months of framing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, there were survey proceedings under section 133A of the Act on 14th and 15th September, 2016. Pursuant to said survey carried on by the department, impugned notice dated 28.3.2018 under section 148 of the Act was issued by the respondent for reopening the assessment for A.Y. 2011-2012 stating that he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and called upon the petitioner to submit the return. The petitioner therefore, on 10.4.2018 submitted the same return which was filed under section 139 of the Act. The respondent along with letter dated 22.6.2018 supplied reasons recorded which are reproduced hereinbelow:

"1. In this case, the assessee filed its return of income on 19/09/2011 declaring total income at Rs. 4,37,543/- for the A.Y. 2011-12. Subsequently, the case was selected for the scrutiny and assessment proceedings were concluded on 31/01/2014.

2. A survey u/s. 133 A of the IT Act was carried out in the case the assessee-company on 14 & 15.09.2016. During the course of survey proceedings certain documents and books of account were found including salary registers for different years. During the course of survey proceedings, on verification of salary register for the F.Y. 2015-16, it was found that the amount of salary debited in the profit and loss account of the relevant year was much higher than the amount of salary payment recorded in the salary register.

2.1 Statement of Shri Chetanbhai A. Kapadia, director of the company, was recorded on oath during the course of survey. He was asked to give explanation and reasons in respect of the above discussed discrepancy i.e. the difference between amount of salary payment recorded in the salary register and the amount of salary debited in the profit and loss account. However, he failed to explain the same or to provide any reaso