Back
BHARGAV D. KARIA, D. N. RAY
Narsimha Trading Co. – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(3) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Darshan Gandhi for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondent.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel waives service of notice of rule for respondent.
3. Having regard to the controversy arising in this petition in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the assumption of the jurisdiction by the respondent-Assessing Officer to issue notice dated 30.03.2021 for reopening assessment for the Assessment Year 2017-18 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 [for short ‘the Act’].
5. The petitioner filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 31.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 1,73,370/-. It is the case of the petitioner that on 20.02.2021, summons under section 131(1) of the Act was issued by the Deputy Director of Investigation/Assistant Director of Investigation, 2 (2), Ahmedabad, requiring the petitioner to provide various details asked in th
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 income tax assessments requires new tangible 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.
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires tangible new material; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
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 ....
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 the reopening of the assessment beyond 4 years from the end of the relevant year, the Assessing Officer must have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax have escaped ....
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....
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
