IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA, JJ.
Pramukh Export Through Its Prop. Sanjaykumar Gangaram Patel - Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Mehsana Or His Successor - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 7053 of 2024
Decided On : 13-08-2024
Income Tax - Quashing of Notice - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 148, 148A(d), 149 - The court found that the Assessing Officer failed to apply due diligence in assessing the genuineness of transactions, leading to an unjustified reopening of the assessment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a partnership firm, filed its income tax return for AY 2018-2019. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148A(b) alleging that income of Rs.126,03,57,840/- had escaped assessment due to unexplained transactions.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the Assessing Officer did not adequately consider the evidence provided by the petitioner and failed to demonstrate any actual escapement of income, leading to a conclusion of non-application of mind.
Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer's order under section 148A(d) was justified in light of the evidence provided by the petitioner regarding the alleged escapement of income.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Assessing Officer's reliance on the non-furnishing of sales and purchase registers, without considering the submitted evidence, constituted a failure to apply proper legal standards.
Result: The petition is allowed, and the impugned order and notice are quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.N. Divatia for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani for learned advocate Ms. Kalpana K. Raval for the respondent.
2. Having regard to the issue involved in this petition which is in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani waives services of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.
4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.03.2024 passed under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2018-2019 as well as notice under section 148 of the Act issued on 29.03.2024 for AY 2018-2019.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm which was constituted as per the partnership deed executed on 01.04.2017 to carry on the business of trading of cotton yarn and spare parts of textiles machinery related products.
6. The petitioner filed its e-ITR for Assessment Year 2018-2019 on 17.07.2018 declaring total income of Rs.8,64,480/-.
7. Respondent issued notice under section 148A(b) on 23.02.2024 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the notice under section 148 of the Act should not be issued and was further asked to furnish response on or before 04.03.2024. The reasons given by the respondent Assessing Officer to come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to reopen the assessment as under :
(i) In respect to payment to contractors M/s. A S Yarn Tex Pvt. Ltd, the assessee has stated that M/s. A S Yarn Tex Pvt. Ltd has wrongly shown the transaction in the TDS return and the said amount does not relate to the assessee. The assessee has furnished the ledger as well as the said transaction pertains to Star Roadways as per the clarificatory letter from M/s. A S Yarn Tex Pvt. Ltd.
(ii) In response to information regarding brokerage from M/s. Rimtex Industries of Rs.12,13,400/- the said commission income is already shown in books of accounts and submitted the ledger showing such details.
(iii) Further as per the GSTR data the assessee has made sale of Rs.59,80,84,806/- during the year under consideration and in this regard, the assessee furnished the sum of party wise sales figures as per GSTR data. However, the assessee has not furnished the sales register of the period under consideration. Hence, the income corresponding to the sale transaction of Rs.59,80,84,806/- being represented in the form of assets as defined in explanation to Section 149 of the Act has escaped assessment.
(iv) As per the information in GSTR data the assessee has made purchases of Rs.66,22,73,034/- during the year under consideration. In this regard, the assessee has furnished the sum of party wise purchase data of the period under consideration. The assessee has not furnished the purchase register and therefore, the source of purchases of Rs.66,33,73,034/- being represented in the form of assets as defined in explanation to Section 149 of the Act has escaped assessment.
(v) In respect to the sale of Mutual Funds of Rs. 8,17,919/- the assessee has furnished the Excel sheet of the sale of Mutual funds and stated that sale has been made by the partners and during the year assessee firm has not sold any mutual funds.
(vi) In respect to Transaction of Rs.9,71,156/- with Mittal Enterprise the assessee has stated that the same are duly recorded in the books. The
The court emphasized the necessity for the Assessing Officer to apply due diligence and consider all evidence before concluding that income has escaped assessment.
The Assessing Officer must have tangible evidence linking the taxpayer to alleged income escape for valid reassessment under the Income Tax Act; mere suspicion is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Assessing Officer to consider the material available on record, including the reply filed by the assessee, before deciding ....
Reopening of assessment under section 148 requires new tangible material; reliance on previously considered facts constitutes a change of opinion, which is impermissible.
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.
The court established that the reopening of an assessment under section 148 requires a clear nexus with income escapement, which was not present in this case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the amended re-assessment scheme introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, and the importance of upholding principles of natura....
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.