Back
BHARGAV D. KARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA
Bharatbhai Ratanshi Shah – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani with learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval with Mrs. Kalpana Raval for the respondents.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 30th March 2021 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for the short “the Act”).
3. The petitioner, who is an individual, was engaged in the business of providing financial services and was also acting as a commission agent.
4. The petitioner filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 28th November 2014 declaring total income at Rs. 20,76,35,110/-.
5. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer issued notice dated 18th August 2016 and the petitioner was called upon to furnish various details including working of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
6. The petitioner, vide reply dated 15th September 2016, submitted that he had invested in unlisted shares of companies
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Assessing Officer must have 'tangible material' to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, especially when issuing a ....
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires tangible new material; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
If an assessing authority forms an opinion during the original assessment proceedings on the basis of material facts and subsequently finds it to be erroneous; it is not a valid reason under the law ....
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires tangible material; mere change of opinion is insufficient for reassessment.
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act after four years is impermissible without failure to disclose material facts; mere change of opinion does not justify such action.
Reopening of assessment under Section 148 is invalid if based on materials already available during the original assessment, constituting a mere change of opinion without fresh evidence.
Reopening of assessment under section 148 requires new tangible material; reliance on previously considered facts constitutes a change of opinion, which is impermissible.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
