High Court rules against reopening assessment for senior citizen trader in Commodity Exchange

The High Court quashed the notice of reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 issued by the Income Tax Officer to a senior citizen who traded in Commodity Exchange. The court found that the Assessing Officer erred in assuming the petitioner did not respond to queries about filing returns, failed to conduct further inquiry, and incorrectly cited transaction amounts. Highlighting the lack of prima facie evidence of escaped income, the court emphasized the necessity of a valid reason to believe income had escaped assessment. As a result, the court allowed the petition in favor of the petitioner, ruling against the reopening of the assessment.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notice of reopening of assessment dated 28.3.2018 by Income Tax Officer for assessment year 2011-12.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a senior citizen, had traded in Commodity Exchange during the relevant period but did not file a return for the assessment year 2011-12 as he believed he had no taxable income. The Assessing Officer, however, alleged that the petitioner had entered into transactions of &8377; 18.82 crore in Commodity Exchange and issued a notice to reassess the petitioner's income. The reasons for reopening the assessment included the lack of filed returns, unexplained profit/gain on commodity exchange, and unexplained sources of investment. The petitioner objected, stating he had no taxable income and actually suffered a loss in his transactions. The Assessing Officer rejected the objections, emphasizing the need for further verification. The High Court noted that the Assessing Officer erred in assuming the petitioner did not respond to queries about filing returns, as the petitioner had communicated that he had no taxable income. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct further inquiry before issuing the notice and incorrectly cited the transaction amount. The court highlighted the Assessing Officer's failure to verify the petitioner's sales and purchases information, indicating a lack of prima facie evidence of escaped income. Despite the wider latitude for reopening assessments without filed returns, the court emphasized the necessity of the Assessing Officer having a valid reason to believe income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the court quashed the notice of reopening and allowed the petition in favor of the petitioner.

---