2024 (4) TMI 938 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reason to believe - Reply of the assessee through reproduced but the contents thereof are not even referred or analyzed prima facie - whether it is a fit case to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act or not - HELD THAT - AO has reproduced the reply filed by the assessee and the contents thereof are not even referred or analyzed prima facie to come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to reopen the assessment. Petitioner along with the reply has reproduced the following documentary evidence of purchase, delivery and payment to show the genuineness of the transactions entered into with M/s. S. K. Enterprises. This Court, by order 2024 (4) TMI 891 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has directed the Respondent to place on record the original papers containing the documents which are supplied by the petitioner in reply to the notice u/s 148A(d) of the Act. Respondent as stated that the documents have been placed on record by the petitioner, as referred hereinabove. Thus we are of the opinion that the impugned order and the notice are required to be quashed and set aside remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) of the Act within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Consideration of the petitioner's reply and documentary evidence by the Assessing Officer.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act.

Summary:

1. Validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 13th April 2022 issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The notice was based on information that M/s S.K. Enterprises, a third party, was involved in availing and passing on incorrect Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual supply of goods. The respondent alleged that the petitioner received GST ITC of Rs. 60,91,125/- from M/s S.K. Enterprises, leading to the conclusion that income of the same amount had escaped assessment.

2. Consideration of the petitioner's reply and documentary evidence by the Assessing Officer:
The petitioner responded to the notice, arguing that the allegations were based on third-party information without providing any inquiry details or evidence. The petitioner furnished complete details of purchases, delivery, and payment, including ledger accounts, invoices, delivery notes, transport receipts, and bank statements, proving the genuineness of transactions with M/s S.K. Enterprises. The petitioner also highlighted that the GST registration of M/s S.K. Enterprises was valid during the transaction period and was later canceled on 11.09.2019. Despite these submissions, the Assessing Officer issued the notice u/s 148 without considering the documentary evidence provided by the petitioner.

3. Compliance with procedural requirements u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act:
The court observed that the Assessing Officer did not properly consider the petitioner's reply and the documentary evidence before passing the order u/s 148A(d). The provision requires the Assessing Officer to decide based on the material available on record, including the assessee's reply. The court noted that the Assessing Officer merely reproduced the petitioner's reply without analyzing it to conclude whether it was a fit case to reopen the assessment.

Conclusion:
The court quashed and set aside the impugned notice u/s 148 and the order u/s 148A(d), remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order within four weeks, considering the documents placed on record by the petitioner. The court emphasized the need for the Assessing Officer to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to decide based on the material available on record. No order as to costs.

← Previous Next →