Tax officer's reassessment order quashed for failing to consider US company's financial capacity and RBI permission under Section 148A(d)

Bombay HC quashed reassessment order u/s 148A(d) against US company that purchased equity shares in Indian subsidiary. Court held tax officer failed to apply mind, ignored RBI permission, and didn't consider petitioner's substantial financial capacity evidenced in public filings. Officer proceeded without calling petitioner to explain fund sources despite petitioner being US-organized company subject to US taxation with billions in income. Matter remitted to different officer; consequential Section 148 notice also quashed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues in this case involve challenging notices and orders issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20, related to re-assessment of income tax and compliance with foreign exchange regulations.

Impugned Notices and Orders:
The petitioner, a US-based company with a subsidiary in India, contested notices and orders issued under the Income Tax Act, including notices under Section 148A(a) & (b) for AY 2019-20, rejecting objections and upholding re-assessment for income tax.

Compliance with RBI Regulations:
The petitioner subscribed to equity shares in its Indian subsidiary during AY 2019-20, complying with Reserve Bank of India (RBI) regulations and submitting necessary details. The petitioner emphasized strict adherence to Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) and RBI rules.

Challenged Notice under Section 148A(b):
The respondent issued a notice under Section 148A(b) alleging high-risk non-filer status and lack of substantiating evidence for share transactions. The petitioner replied, explaining the absence of taxable income and providing supporting documents.

Order and Lack of Consideration:
The impugned order upheld re-assessment without due consideration of the petitioner's explanations and compliance with RBI regulations. The court noted the failure to verify the source of investment and overlooked the petitioner's financial standing and compliance history.

Quashing of Orders and Remittal:
The court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter for reconsideration by a different officer. The consequential notice under Section 148 was also set aside, allowing the petitioner to submit further documents if desired within a specified timeframe.

Procedural Directions:
The court directed a fresh consideration by a designated officer, ensuring a personal hearing for the petitioner and submission of written responses post-hearing. The new order under Section 148A(d) was mandated to be comprehensive and address all petitioner submissions.

Disposition:
The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, emphasizing the need for a fair and thorough reconsideration of the matter by the tax authorities.

---