9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t satisfaction, but only relied upon the information received from the Investigation Unit, which is nothing, but said to be borrowed satisfaction. Since no tangible and / or new material has come in possession of the Assessing Officer, the reassessment proceedings can also be said on the basis of the change of opinion, which, according to our considered opinion, is not permissible in the eye of law. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) No. 1 : Mr B S Soparkar (6851). For the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 : Mr. Varun K. Patel (3802) ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA) [1] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the notice dated 29th March 2021 issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ) as well as the order dated 9th February 2022, by which the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected. [2] The facts giving rise to the present petition, in nutshell, can be stated as under: [2.1] The petitioner is engaged in the business of trading in gold ornaments. On 16th April 2022 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisfaction recorded by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1. [2.6] On 17th December 2021, respondent has issued notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act instead of providing the full copy of reasons recorded by the PCIT, Ahmedabad 1. Furtherance thereof, objections were filed by the petitioner on 28th December 2021 and once again to supply full copy of reasons recorded and approval obtained. [2.7] To the aforesaid, respondent No. 2 provided the undated copy of reasons recorded on 29th December 2021 and has not provided the copy of satisfaction recorded by the PCIT, Ahmedabad-1 and thereafter, on 9th February 2022, objections filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of. [3] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition for the appropriate relief. [4] We have heard learned advocate Mr. B. S. Soparkar for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Varun K. Patel for the Revenue authorities. [5] Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar, while assailing the impugned notice and order, has made the following submissions: [5.1] Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar submitted that the only reason recorded by the authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption, yield and sale both with respect to raw material as well as with respect to finished goods on 2nd January 2016. On such basis, the then Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the Act dated 4th March 2016 without making any addition on account of purchase of gold ornaments. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Soparkar submitted that now, exercise of power under Section 148 of the Act is nothing, but based on change of opinion and the same is impermissible in the eye of law. [5.4] Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar submitted that the reassessment proceedings sought to be initiated without recording independent satisfaction and / or without application of mind and merely on the basis of information received without conducting any basic inquiry on such received information. According to Mr. Soparkar, the said reassessment thereby can be said to be on borrowed satisfaction and the same is not permissible in the eye of law. [5.5] Lastly, learned advocate Mr. Soparkar submitted that the reassessment proceedings sought to be initiated only on the basis of suspicion that income has escaped assessment and no actual reason to believe is recorded. Such proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Airport and both the persons are the employees of Bhavin Jayendrakumar Shantilal to which the assessee has not offered any explanation with regard to source of purchase of gold and thereby, it was remained unexplained. Learned advocate Mr. Patel, therefore, submitted that in view of Section 69 of the Act, the income of the assessee said to have escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and thereby, exercise of power under Section 148 of the Act is well justified. [7.5] In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Patel for the Revenue has vehemently submitted that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of change of opinion, as sought to be canvassed by the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Patel, therefore, requested this Court to dismiss the present petition. [8] By making above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Patel prays this Court to dismiss the present petition. [9] We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and have gone through the material produced on record in detail. No further and other submissions have been canvassed except what are stated hereinabove. [10] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /03/2013. it is further reported by the ITO (Inv.), Unit-1, Ahmedabad that Shri Chidrap Gandhi and Shri Paresh Rawal are employees of Bhavin Jayendrakumar Soni, Prop. M/s. Soni Jayendrakumar Shantial. Section 69 of the Act provides that where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investment or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, the value of investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year. Therefore, it is very clear that the assessee has not offered any explanation with documentary evidences and also failed to furnish source of purchase of gold weighing 19756.720, the value of such gold is of Rs. 5,84,99,648/- which is remain unexplained. Failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment, the income of the assessee has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs. 5,84,99,648/- for the AY 2013- 14 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-Tax Act. 1961, I have, therefore, reason to beli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
