Reopening of tax assessments requires clear, specific reasons supported by tangible evidence; vague allegations do not warrant legal action.

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 under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 for Assessment Year 2014- 2015 respectively along with assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022.

5. This Court passed the order issuing notice on 30.03.2022 and has also granted ad interim order in terms of para 11(C) of the petition restraining the respondent Assessing Officer on further proceedings in pursuance of notice under section 148 of the Act.

6. Special Civil Application No.14513/2023 and Special Civil Application No. 14489/2023 are in case of Pravinkumar Premchandbhai Patel, brother of the petitioner in the aforesaid two cases wherein notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 respectively are challenged. So far as these two petitions are concerned, it is second round of litigation as earlier the petitioner had challenged the same notices by preferring Special Civil Application No. 4007 of 2022 and Special Civil Application No. 3462 of 2022 which were allowed by remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass detailed order giving reasons for disposing off the objections filed by the petitioner objecting to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act for both the assessment years. Thereafter the Assessing Officer passed the speaking order disposing off the objections on 11.07.2023 rejecting the objections of the petitioner for reopening. The petitioner has therefore, again preferred these two petitions challenging the notice for reopening dated 30.03.2021 and the order disposing off the objection dated 11.07.2023 for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015.

7. The petitioners derive income from salary from their family concern M/s. Patel D.J. Tobacco Products Private Limited since 2006 and also earns interest from loans and advances, investments and deposits with the bank.

8. The petitioners filed their return of income for both the Assessment Years which have been processed under section 143(1) of the Act.

9. The petitioners filed revised return of income on 30.11.2015 declaring capital gain on the sale of agricultural land which was an exempt income.

10. The petitioners thereafter received the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 for both the assessment years. The petitioners filed return of income pursuant to the notice under section 148 of the Act declaring the same income which was offered to tax earlier. The respondent Assessing Officer thereafter uploaded the notice under section 143(2) of the Act for the month of September, 2021 containing the extract of reasons without disclosing the date of recording of the reasons alleging that the petitioners have entered into bogus sub contract with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. and investment made by the petitioners