Point of Law: One of the purposes of S. 147, appears to us to be, to ensure that a party cannot get away by wilfully making a false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn around and say “you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing.” It would be travesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude

JUDGMENT :

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. The vexed issue as to whether the Assessing Officer could have assumed the jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) for reopening the assessment on the basis of the subsequent reliable and creditworthy information received by him from the investigating wings, unearthing the bogus transactions or accommodation entries involving the assessee, has cropped up in this petition.

2. The petitioner company by way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the action of the respondent in reopening of the assessment for the A.Y. 2012-13 under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide the notice dated 27.03.2019 issued under section 148 of the said Act thereof, as also the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the respondent rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner against the reopening of the assessment.

3. The conspectus of the case as emerging from the record is that the petitioner had filed its return of income along with the audit report for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 31.03.2013. The assessment order in that regard was passed by the then Assessing Officer after making thorough scrutiny under section 143(3) of the said Act on 16.03.2015. The petitioner thereafter was served with the notice under section 133(6) of the said Act on 21.03.2019 (Annexure E), whereby the petitioner was called upon to furnish the information as mentioned therein in respect of the A.Y. 2012-13, however, it appears that the assessee did not respond to the said notice. The petitioner thereafter was served with the impugned notice dated 27.03.2019 (Annexure F) under section 148 of the said Act, whereby the petitioner was called upon to file the return in the prescribed form for the A.Y. 2012-13 on the ground that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax for the A.Y. 2012-13 had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the said Act. The assessee therefore filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 15.07.2019 declaring its total income at Rs. 1,50,23,831/-. The petitioner thereafter was provided with a copy of reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment vide the letter dated 12.11.2019 (Annexure G) to which the petitioner had filed the objections on 22.11.2019 (Annexure H). The respondent vide the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure I) disposed of the said objections, which is under challenge before this Court by way of present petition.

4. The petition has been resisted by the respondent by filing an affidavit-in-reply in which it has been contended inter-alia that the respondent had received the information from two sources - firstly, from DDIT (Investigation), Unit 1(2), Ahmedabad, who had reported that the petitioner-assessee was one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs for the A.Y. 2012-13, as one Manojbhai H. Patel, proprietor of M/s. Kamdhenu Marketing of Ahmedabad had provided bogus sales entries to the petitioner. The other information received was from the DDIT (Investigation), Unit 1(3), Ahmedabad, who had reported that pursuant to the search action conducted under section 132 of the said Act on 11.09.2018 in case of Shri Jignesh Shah, Ahmedabad, it was found that Shri Jignesh Shah was an accommodation entry provider and the petitioner assessee had received accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- during F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13 from one M/s. Arihant Enterprise Ltd. controlled by the said Jignesh Shah. It is further contended that on the basis of said tangible material, having live link with the aspect of escapement of income by the petitioner, the assessment was sought to be reopened under section 147 of the said Act. The petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-rejoinder to rebut the contentions of the respondent.

5. The learned advocate Mr. D.R. Patel appearing for the petitioner ve