BHARGAV D. KARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA
Arunbhai Maneklal Jhaveri And Sons Through Partner Rajubhai Arunbhai Jhaveri – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1) – Respondent
ORDER :
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 The petitioner is a partnership firm established on 1st April 1994. The petitioner filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 through electronic media on 29th October 2017 declaring total income of Rs.96,91,680/-.
2.2 Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) and notice was accordingly issued by the Assessing Officer - ACIT, Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad. During the course of assessment proceedings, various details and explanation were called for, all of which had been duly submitted on
Reopening of income tax assessments requires new tangible material; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
The court ruled that an Assessing Officer must demonstrate a tangible basis for believing income has escaped assessment; mere suspicion or lack of evidence does not justify reopening.
Reopening of assessment under section 148 requires new tangible material; reliance on previously considered facts constitutes a change of opinion, which is impermissible.
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires tangible new material; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires fresh tangible information; reliance on previously available data constitutes a change of opinion, which is impermissible.
The court emphasized the need for tangible material to believe that income had escaped assessment and held that the power to grant approval for re-opening an assessment is coupled with a duty and can....
Reopening of assessment under section 148 requires valid reasons and cannot be based on mere suspicion or for verification purposes.
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.
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.
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.