Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D.KARIA, D.N.RAY
Ashokkumar Premchandbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to notices under income tax act (Para 4 , 6) |
| 2. filing of returns and receipt of notices (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. allegations regarding bogus subcontract and vague information (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. absence of tangible material for reopening assessments (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. petitions allowed; notices and assessments quashed (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Umaid Singh Bhati for the petitioners and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondents.
2. Having regard to the controversy involved in these petitions, with the consent of learned advocate for the respective parties, the matters are heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents in the respective petitions.
4. Special Civil Application No.6462/2022 and Special Civil Application No.6463/2022 are filed in case of Ashokkumar Premchandbhai Patel challenging notice under section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT ,1961 (for short ’the Act’) dated 29.03.2021 for Assessment Year 2013-2014 and notice
Reopening of tax assessments requires clear, specific reasons supported by tangible evidence; vague allegations do not warrant legal action.
The Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment based solely on a change of opinion; valid reasons must exist to believe that income has escaped assessment.
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 assessment under Section 148 requires clear, independent reasoning demonstrating income has escaped assessment, which was not satisfied in this case.
The court established that reopening assessments requires a clear and valid reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, which was not present in this case.
The court established that reopening assessments requires new material evidence, and Section 50C does not apply to stock in trade, reinforcing the principle against mere changes of opinion.
The main legal point established is that the AO cannot reopen the assessment on a change of opinion when the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed.
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
