Court restricts respondent from passing final order without permission, emphasizes accurate info in reopening assessments.

The court considered the petitioner's arguments regarding alleged sham transactions and discrepancies in the assessment for the assessment year 2011-12. The court issued a notice returnable on 5th February 2019, allowing the respondent to proceed further but restricting them from passing a final order without the court's permission. The court emphasized the need for accurate information and independent opinion in reopening assessments under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

---

---

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment for assessment year 2011-12 based on alleged sham transaction to convert unaccounted money into accounted money.
2. Consideration of amount received on account of transaction in the scrip "Global Capital Markets Limited" as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Incorrect information in reasons recorded by Assessing Officer regarding the amount received by the assessee and filing of return of income for the year under consideration.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner's advocate highlighted that the assessment for the year 2011-12 was being reopened due to an alleged sham transaction aimed at converting unaccounted money into accounted money through capital gains. The petitioner received an amount of Rs. 9,52,525 on account of a transaction in the scrip "Global Capital Markets Limited," which the Assessing Officer considered as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the information used by the Assessing Officer was based on the acquisition of shares of penny stock companies at low prices through preferential allotment or off-market transactions, with a lock-in period of one year as per SEBI regulations.

2. The advocate further pointed out discrepancies in the assessment, stating that the actual amount received was Rs. 9,50,625, not Rs. 9,52,525 as mentioned. Additionally, the shares in question were acquired in 2002-03 and sold in 2010, exceeding the six-year holding period. The shares were listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange, purchased from a recognized stockbroker, and payment was made through a demand draft. The shares were credited to the demat account on the purchase day. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer's decision to reopen the assessment was based on incorrect factual premises and solely relied on external information without forming an independent opinion on tax evasion, questioning the jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act.

3. The advocate also highlighted inaccuracies in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, stating that the petitioner had indeed filed the return of income for the year under consideration, contrary to the officer's assertion. Considering the submissions made by the petitioner's advocate, the court issued a notice returnable on 5th February 2019. The respondent was allowed to proceed further based on the notice but was restricted from passing a final order without the court's permission, with direct service permitted for communication.

---