Gujarat High Court
Meghmani Organics Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 4 December, 2024
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5628 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==============================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==============================================================
MEGHMANI ORGANICS LIMITED
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1),
AHMEDABAD & ANR.
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 04/12/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counel Mr.Varun K. Patel with learned advocate Page 1 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined Mr.Dev D. Patel for the respondents.
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27th March, 2021 for re-opening of Assessment Year 2016-17 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :
3.1. The petitioner filed its original return of income for the Assessment Year 2015- 16 on 28th November, 2016 declaring total income of Rs.4,45,400.73/- and on 29th March, Page 2 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined 2018 the revised return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs.4,25,900.94/-.
Thereafter, the case of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2016-17 was selected for scrutiny, detailed scrutiny was undertaken and notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') dated 3rd December, 2018 was issued raising various issues including the claim of expenses of Rs.1,92,47,669/-. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 10th December, 2018.
3.2. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed an Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2016-17 dated 25th January, 2020 assessing total income of the petitioner at Rs.47,03,40,607/-.
3.3. The respondent No.1 issued the Page 3 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 27th March, 2021 asking the petitioner to file return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17. In compliance of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 27th March, 2021, the petitioner filed its return of income and sought for the reasons recorded for reopening.
3.4. A copy of the reasons recorded for re-
opening was provided to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.05.2021 and thereafter, the petitioner filed the objections on 31st May, 2021 challenging the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.
3.5. The respondent No.2 thereafter issued the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 17th December, 2021 asking various Page 4 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined details in connection with assessment instead of passing any order and disposed of the objections.
3.6. The petitioner thereafter, vide letter dated 31st December, 2021 requested the respondent No.2 to pass a speaking order disposing of the objections. The respondent No.2 thereafter passed the impugned order dated 15th January, 2022 disposing of the objections. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer can be summarised as under :
"2. Brief details of Information collected/received by the AO:
Verification of the records i.e. Profit & Loss Account, Balance Sheet, Assessment Records etc. revealed that, the assessee-company has claimed deduction of Rs. 192.48 lakhs in its Page 5 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined statement of income in respect of the following expenses.
Particulars Amount (in lakh)
Gratuity Premium Paid 40.25
Usage Drainage Charges 152.23
Total 192.48
It is clear that, the assessee- company has not debited above expenses in its Profit & Loss Account. The expenses which were not debited in P&L Account does not relates to business and therefore are not allowable as deduction from income in statement of income for working taxable income."
5. Learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction as during the course of the regular assessment, the details were submitted by the petitioner with regard to the allowable deduction of Rs.1,92,47,669/-.
Reference was made to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 03.12.2018 and the reply of the assessee dated 10th December, Page 6 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined 2018 more particularly, paragraph No.5 at page No.175 read with details provided at page No.187 of the petition. It was therefore submitted that the impugned notice is a classic case of mere change of opinion. It was therefore submitted that the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel for the respondent has referred to and relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply to contend that the impugned notice is issued after forming a reasonable belief that the income has escaped the assessment on perusal of the assessment record as the Assessing Officer during the regular course of assessment did not considered the dis-
allowance of Rs.192.48 Lakhs pertaining to the Page 7 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined Gratuity Premium paid and Usage Drainage Charges claimed by the assessee as deduction :
"7. It is submitted that the case was reopened as per the procedure after recording of satisfaction and taking approval of the competent authority, hence it cannot be said that the case was reopened in mechanical manner. The main ingredient required to issue notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is to form 'reason to believe'. At the stage of issue of notice us 148, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which reasonable person could have form the requisite belief as to whether an income chargeable to tax has VT escaped assessment. The expression reason to believe cannot be read to mean that the AO should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. Whether material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at the stage of issue of Page 8 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined notice. It only means that the AO forms a belief from the examination of facts, from any information the AO receives. If the AO discovers or finds of satisfies that the taxable income has escaped assessment, it would amount to saying that the AO had reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment. The justification of AO's belief is not to be judged from the standards of proof required for coming to a final decision. A belief though justified for the purpose of initiation of the proceedings u/s 147 may ultimately stand altered after the hearing and while reaching the final conclusion on the basis of the intervening enquiry. At the stage where AO finds a cause or justification to believe that such income has escaped assessment, the AO is not required to base his belief on any final adjudication of the matter. The AO had applied his mind and examined the information received and then recorded his reasons to believe that the income Page 9 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined of assessee had escaped assessment for the year under consideration.
In view above, the AO has reasonable belief that by omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. The escapement of income was found and therefore the assessment was correctly reopened by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after recording the reasons of the same and by following the prescribed procedure laid down under the Income-tax Act along-with obtaining prior approval from the competent authorities. Hence, it is clear that the AO has applied his mind while re-opening the case.
8. It is submitted that the case of the assessee was selected in scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessment order was passed by the then AO as per the Page 10 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined information available with the AO at that time. However, the requisite full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment has not been made as noted above. The AO after analyzing the all facts and information from case records, has recorded his reason for reopening the case. It can be reasonably concluded that there is failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all necessary material facts during the assessment proceedings. In view of the facts as narrated above, this cannot be a case of change of opinion as there was no opinion formed in the first instance. The AO, subsequently, through the application of his mind on the 'information', had reasons to believe that the income had escaped assessment. In this regard, attention is drawn to the following judgement of the Apex Court (the relevant portion is reproduced): Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- tax [1971] 82 ITR 367 (SC):
Page 11 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined "Suppose a mistake in the original order of assessment is not discovered by the Income-tax Officer himself on further scrutiny but it is brought to his notice by another assessee or even by a subordinate or a superior officer that would appear to be information disclosed to the Income-tax Officer. If the mistake itself is not extraneous to the record and the informant gathered the information from the record, the immediate source of information to the Income-tax Officer in such circumstances is in one sense extraneous to the record. It is difficult to accept the position that while what is seen by another in the record is information' what is seen by the Income-tax Officer himself is not information to him. In the latter case he just informs himself. It will be information in his possession within the meaning of section 34."Page 12 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined To the same effect the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gruh Finance Ltd. Vs. Jt. CIT (2000) 161 CTR (Guj) 100:
(2000) 243 ITR 482 (Guj) held that if no conscious consideration of the material available on record is made and a mistake has been committed, it will not prevent the competent officer to exercise powers under section 147 of the Act. The Hon'ble Court observed as under:
"We have also seriously considered the entire case law from which aforesaid paragraphs are relied on. Insofar as the expressions "reason to believe" and "change of opinion"
are concerned, we are of the view that though the material was available on record, at the time of first assessment, when no conscious consideration of the material is made and a mistake has been committed, it would not, in any case, create an embargo or a ban on Page 13 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined the competent officer to exercise powers under the amended s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961, as prima facie, there could not be "change of opinion" in that factual scenario. It has also not been shown to us on behalf of an assessee. If conscious application of mind is made to the relevant facts and material available or existing at the relevant point of time while making assessment and again a different or divergent view is sought, it would tantamount to "change of opinion", whereas, in the case of existing material, no conscious attempt has been made, it would tantamount to mistake in not considering the relevant point or proposition and it would not be a "change of opinion. The principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessments would be applicable only to situations where the AO has applied his mind and taken a conscious Page 14 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined decision on a particular matter in issue. It will have no application where the order of assessment does not address itself to the aspect which is the basis for reopening of the assessment, as is the position in the present case. It is in that view inconsequential whether or not the material necessary for taking a decision was available to the AO either generally or in the form of a reply to the questionnaire served upon the assessee. What is important is whether the AO had based on the material available to him taken a view. If he had not done so, the proposed reopening cannot be assailed on the ground that the same is based only on a change of opinion."
In Bawabhai Singh Vs. DCIT, 253 ITR83 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that :
"there must be some material which Page 15 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined can be regarded as information, on the basis of which the Assessing Officer can have reason to believe that action under section 147is called for. Information means the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence. It includes knowledge obtained from investigation study or instruction. The reasons which may weigh with the A.O. may be result of his own investigation and may come from any source that he considers reliable."
It is evident from the above facts as mentioned in the reason recorded, that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to point out here that the only requirement for reopening the assessment is that the AO has reasonable belief of escaped assessment. As stated in the reason recorded and also detailed discussion Page 16 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined made above, it is apparent that the AO has information in his possession about the accommodation entries provided to the assessee which is not genuine as discussed in foregoing paras. At the time of recording the reasons for reopening the assessment, it not necessary for the AO to bring all the evidences of concealed income of the assessee but the AO on the material available with him has a reasonable belief of escapement of income. In the case under reference, the AO has enough material in his hands to prove that the assessee has not furnished truly and correctly all the material necessary for the assessment.
It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Hemjay Construction Co. Pvt Ltd - through Deenaben Yogeshbhai Shah Vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2) - in SCA No. 19392 of 2018, has held that merely because certain materials which is otherwise tangible and enables the Assessing Officer to Page 17 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined form a belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, formed part of the original assessment record, per se would not bar the Assessing Officer from reopening the assessment on the basis of such material. The expression "tangible material does not mean the material alien to the original record. The Hon'ble Court has also held that "it is not necessary that the Income Tax Officer should hold a quasi judicial inquiry before acting under Section 147. It is enough if he on the information received believes in good faith that the assesee's profits have escaped assessment or have been assessed at a low rate."
It is further ruled by the Hon'ble High Court that the reasons recorded or the material available on record must have nexus to the subjective opinion formed by the A.O. regarding the escapement of Page 18 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined the income but then, while recording the reasons for the belief formed, the A.O. is not required to finally ascertain the factum of escapement of the tax and it is sufficient that the A.O had cause or justification to know or suppose that the income had escaped assessment [CIT v. Rajesh JhaveriStock Brokers (P) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)]. It is also well settled that the sufficiency and adequacy of the reasons which have led to the formation of a belief by the Assessing Officer that the income has escaped the assessment cannot be examined by the court. In view of the above ruling of Hon'ble jurisdictional High court, the objection raised by the assessee does not sustain hence requires to be rejected.
For aforesaid reasons, it is not a case of change of opinion. It is evident from the above facts as mentioned in the reason recorded, that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed Page 19 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined material facts OTARY necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to point out here that the only requirement for reopening the assessment is that the AO has reasonable belief of escaped assessment. At the time of recording the reasons for reopening the assessment, it not necessary for the AO to bring all the evidences of concealed income of the assessee but the AO on the material available with him has a reasonable belief of escapement of income. In the case under reference, the AO has enough material in his hands to prove that the assessee has not furnished truly and correctly all the material necessary for the assessment.
9. As regards the petitioner's claim that it has rightly claimed the expenses of Rs.1,92,47,669/- and hence on merits, no income has escaped assessment, it is submitted that the petitioner has raised question about Page 20 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined the merit of the case which is premature at this stage where the only requirement for reopening the assessment is that the AO has reasonable belief of escaped assessment. The detailed verification will be carried out during the reassessment proceedings wherein assessee's submission will be confronted with the material available on record."
7. Referring to the above averments, it was submitted that no interference may be made by this Court while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts and material on record, it is apparent from the reasons recorded that the Assessing Page 21 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined Officer on the basis of the assessment records available with him has formed a reason to believe that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.192.48 Lakhs without any basis, however, from the material on record, it emerges that during the course of the regular assessment, the issue of deduction of Rs.192.48 Lakhs was scrutinised as the assessee has furnished the details vide reply dated 10.12.2018 and after considering the reply, the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have assumed the jurisdiction on mere change of opinion as held by the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator of India Ltd reported in 320 ITR 560 (SC) which reads as under :
Page 22 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined "On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re-opening could be done under above two conditions and fulfillment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back assessment, but in section 147 of the Act [with effect from 1st April, 1989], they are given a go-by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re- open the assessment. Therefore, post- 1st April, 1989, power to re-open is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re- open. We must also keep in mind the Page 23 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to Section 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted the words "reason to believe" but also inserted Page 24 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined the word "opinion" in Section 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the Companies against omission of the words "reason to believe", Parliament re-introduced the said expression and deleted the word "opinion" on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer. We quote here in below the relevant portion of Circular No.549 dated 31st October, 1989, which reads as follows:
"7.2 Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to reintroduce the expression `reason to believe' in Section 147. --A number of representations were received against the omission of the words `reason to believe' from Section 147 and their substitution by the `opinion' of the Assessing Officer. It was pointed out that the meaning of the expression, `reason to believe' had been explained in a number of court rulings in the past Page 25 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined and was well settled and its omission from section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989, has again amended section 147 to reintroduce the expression `has reason to believe' in place of the words `for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion'. Other provisions of the new section 147, however, remain the same."
For the afore-stated reasons, we see no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department, hence, dismissed with no order as to costs."
9. It is also pertinent to note that there is no new tangible material available with the Assessing Officer and only on looking at the assessment records, the respondent has formed a reason to believe that the income has Page 26 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5628/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2024 undefined escaped the assessment. We are therefore of the opinion that the impugned notice cannot be sustained.
10. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition success and is accordingly allowed.
The impugned notice dated 27th March, 2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No orders as to cost.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (D.N.RAY,J) PALAK Page 27 of 27 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 17 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:19:48 IST 2024