IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.V. ANJARIA, BHARGAV D. KARIA, JJ.
Vijay Ramanlal Sanghvi – Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cirlce 2(1)(2) – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 19010 of 2018
Decided On : 16-12-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 14 - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 148, 147, 143(3), (1), 2(40), 151 - Assessment Year - Reopening of assessment proceedings - Stay proceedings for Assessment Year - Challenged notice for reopening of assessment proceedings for Assessment Year and also prayed to stay further proceedings for Assessment Year - Held, Court is of opinion that under guise of reopening assessment, Assessing Officer wants to have a roving inquiry - Under circumstances, in absence of any tangible material to form an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and in absence of any satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer by merely relying upon the information received from the Office of DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai, the impugned action of reopening the assessment while exercising power under section 148 of the Act cannot be sustained - impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 is not tenable in law and is accordingly quashed and set aside – Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
[Bhargav D. Karia, J.]
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani with Ms. Vaibhavi K. Parikh for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondent.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27.03.2018 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”) for reopening of the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 and also prayed to stay the further proceedings for the Assessment Year 2011-2012.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under :
3.1) The petitioner-assessee is a Director in Ratnaveer Stainless Products Pvt. Ltd., situated at GIDC Savli, Manjusar, Vadodara.
3.2) It is the case of the petitioner that during the Assessment Year 2011-2012, the petitioner received certain funds from Prraneta Industries Ltd. (Now known as Aadhar Venture India Ltd) and the same were repaid during before the end of the year under consideration which included a sum aggregating to Rs. 2,10,00,000/- received through Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) on 02.02.2011.
3.3) The petitioner filed original return of income for the year under consideration on 25.08.2011 declaring total income at Rs.19,03,430/-.
3.4) It is the case of the petitioner that after a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, the respondent issued the impugned notice dated 27.03.2018 under section 148 for reopening the assessment for the year under consideration.
3.5) The petitioner filed return of income for the year under consideration on 25.04.2018 and submitted copy of such return of income to the respondent vide letter dated 26.04.2018 and requested the respondent to supply the copy of reasons recorded for reopening.
3.6) Accordingly, the respondents supplied the copy of reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment dated 18.07.2018 for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act read as under :
2. The information from the DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai has been received on 26.03.2018 through letter dated 19.03.2018 of the DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara. As per the information, Shri Vijay R. Sanghvi, has obtained three accommodation entries of Rs. 70 lakh each (total 2.1 Cr) all on 02.02.2011 which were credited in CITI Bank NA, Vadodara in the bank account of shri Vijay R. Sanghvi. The said debits were made from bank account of Prraneta Industries Ltd. now known as Aadhar Venture India Ltd.
3. All three entries of Rs 70 lakh each totaling to Rs 2.1 Cr were obtained by shri Vijay R. Sanghvi on a single day on 2.2.2011 are not commensurate with the return filed by the assessee in ITR-2 for the A.Y. 2011-12. In return filed, bank account details are not mentioned. Besides salary income and other income shown, short term capital gain shown in the return is Rs 7,66,586/- only. Such huge amount of Rs 2.1 Cr received in case of an individual whose main source of income is salary income as director of a company prima facie show the transaction as non genuine transaction.
4. As per ITS data, assessee had entered in to sale/purchase of shares for total amount of transactions being of Rs 8,11,00,174/- in 161 transactions of such sales and purchases. Further, it was observed that out of 161 such transactions, 159 transactions are related to transactions in shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Ind. Ltd. during two m
It is a settled position of law that reopening of case under Section 147 of the act, after expiry of 4 years, cannot be justified unless the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason ....
Point of Law : Sufficiency of the evidence or material is not open to scrutiny by the Court but the existence of the belief is the sine qua non for a valid exercise of power.
It is settled law that, at the stage of Section 148 of the Act, what is required is “reason to believe”, but not the established fact of escapement of income. This aspect has been considered by the A....
It is a settled position of law that reopening of case under Section 147 of the act, after expiry of 4 years, cannot be justified unless the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason ....
At the time of recording the reason for satisfaction of AO, there should be prima facie some material on the basis of which, the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of th....
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 whethe....
Point of Law : Formation of belief by the Assessing Officer at the stage of initiation of action under section 147 of the Act is within the realm of subjective satisfaction.
The Assessing Officer must independently verify information before reopening assessments; reliance on third-party information without application of mind invalidates the reopening process.
Assessing Officer having arrived at his subjective satisfaction based on additional fresh material placed before him that the petitioner had not fully and truly disclosed all the material facts neces....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.