Back
BHARGAV D. KARIA, D. N. RAY
Raajratna Stockholdings Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1) – 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. Varun K.Patel for the respondent.
2. Having regard to the controversy arising in this appeal in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged a notice dated 30.03.2021 for reopening of assessment for A.Y.2013-14 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 [for short ‘the Act’].
4. The petitioner-company was engaged in the activity of trading in shares and securities. During the Financial Year 2012-13 relevant to Assessment Year 2013- 14, the petitioner had also entered into transaction in Futures & Options [F & O] and derivatives, which resulted into profit of Rs. 1,52,59,143/-. The petitioner disclosed the same in the Profit and Loss Account and filed return of income for the year under consideration on 30.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs. (-)73,71,104/-. Case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and during original
The court held that an Assessing Officer must form an independent opinion based on material on record before reopening an assessment, and cannot solely rely on external information.
The court emphasized that vague reasons for reopening an assessment do not satisfy the legal requirement for establishing income escapement under Section 148.
The reopening of an assessment under the Income Tax Act requires the Assessing Officer to provide specific reasons linking alleged income escapement to the taxpayer's records, which must not solely r....
Reopening of assessments under the Income Tax Act requires fresh tangible material; reliance on previously examined information constitutes a change of opinion and is invalid.
The Assessing Officer must establish the jurisdictional requirement for reopening and cannot rely solely on information without verifying if the issue had been disclosed during the original assessmen....
The main legal point established is that the Assessing Officer's belief for the reassessment of income under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is based on subjective satisfaction and the existence of....
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....
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires tangible new material; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
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....
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
