Point of law: It is no doubt true that the Court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the Income Tax Officer on the point as to whether action should be initiated for reopening assessment.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.

1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner – assessee seeking to quash and set aside the Notice dated 18.03.2020 issued by the respondent authority under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2013-14, as it has reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax for the assessment year under consideration has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act.

2. The facts in brief of the case of the petitioner are that the petitioner, who is an individual, had, filed Return of Income (Rol) on 17.03.2021 at net taxable income of Rs.23,30,760/-. The assessment under section 143(3) r/w. section 153A of the Act was finalized on 31.12.2015. However, thereafter, the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act had been issued to the petitioner. The Rol for the Assessing Officer 2013-14 was filed on 21.03.2014 earlier, and there was submission dated 23.12.2015, filed before the Assessing Officer. The petitioner also furnished the information as was asked for. Thereafter, the assessment under section 143(3), r/w. section 153A of the Act was framed vide Assessment Order dated 31.12.2015. After filing Rol on 17.03.2021, based on proceedings under section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer supplied the reasons for reopening vide communication dated 24.03.2021. The notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 08.04.2021. Against the reasons accorded, the petitioner, vide letter dated 22.04.2021, raised objections against reopening on factual as well as the legal grounds and certain submissions along with accompaniments thereto, were also filed vide communication dated 03.05.2021, however, the respondent authority disposed of the said objections raised by the petitioner vide order dated 10.05.2021 inter alia holding that the reopening is justified and valid in the eye of law. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 25.05.2021 was issued against the petitioner fixing the date of hearing on 31.05.2021, which were replied by the petitioner by communication dated 26.05.2021 raising some contentions with regard to the identical matter etc. and grant of interim relief by this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this petition.

3. We have heard, learned advocate Mr. Ketan Shah for the petitioner and learned senior advocate Mr. M. R. Bhatt for learned advocate Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt for the respondent.

3.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently and fervently argued that in the present case, the assessee has neither contacted, nor has remote contact with Shri Jignesh Shah as mentioned in the so-called list and therefore, the notice under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. It is submitted that there is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer and hence, the impugned notice deserves to be set aside.

3.2 It is further contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that even the list filed by Shri Jignesh Shah does not contain the name of the petitioner herein. The learned advocate for the petitioner further drew our attention to the letter dated 18.12.2014, and submitted that it was noticed by CBDT that the assessee were coerced to admit undisclosed income during searches/surveys conducted by the department and therefore, such practice was deprecated by the CBDT. He submitted every citizen has right to transact in share and make purchase and sale the same in the market, and thereby, there is nothing wrong in availing the benefit/profit from the same. Further, it is submitted that whatever Shri Jignesh Shah has done, cannot be taken as accommodation entry by the assessee and therefore, the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act is bad in law.

3.3 The learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that in the case on hand