Court quashes assessment reopening for 2012-13 due to prior assessment, deems reassessment impermissible.

The court allowed the petition and quashed the notice of reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2012-13. The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the alleged bogus accommodation entries were actually received in the year 2010-11 and had been assessed during that period, leading to the court finding the reassessment basis lacking and impermissible for the Assessing Officer to proceed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to notice of reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2012-13.
2. Allegation of receiving bogus accommodation entries.
3. Objections raised by the petitioner regarding the notice of reopening.
4. Disposal of objections by the Assessing Officer.
5. Examination of documents and establishment that the receipts in question did not relate to the present assessment year.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to notice of reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2012-13
The petitioner challenged a notice of reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 issued by the Assessing Officer. The reasons for reopening the assessment included the belief that the petitioner had received bogus accommodation entries totaling Rs. 55 lakhs from entities controlled by Mr. Vipul Vidhur Bhatt. The petitioner objected to this notice, stating that the amounts in question were received during the year 2010-11 and not the current year. The petitioner provided evidence to support this claim, including submissions made during the assessment proceedings for the year 2010-11.

Issue 2: Allegation of receiving bogus accommodation entries
The Assessing Officer alleged that the petitioner had received bogus accommodation entries totaling Rs. 55 lakhs from specific entities controlled by Mr. Vipul Vidhur Bhatt. However, the petitioner demonstrated through documentary evidence that the amounts in question were received during the year 2010-11 and had been verified during the assessment proceedings for that year. The petitioner argued that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were factually erroneous, and the reopening deserved to be quashed.

Issue 3: Objections raised by the petitioner regarding the notice of reopening
The petitioner raised objections to the notice of reopening, highlighting that the alleged receipts were from the year 2010-11 and had been assessed during that period. The petitioner provided detailed responses to the notice, pointing out the discrepancies in the reasons recorded for the reopening. The objections were rejected by the Assessing Officer, leading to the filing of the petition challenging the notice.

Issue 4: Disposal of objections by the Assessing Officer
The Assessing Officer rejected the objections raised by the petitioner regarding the notice of reopening. Despite the petitioner providing evidence that the amounts in question were received during the year 2010-11 and had been assessed during that period, the Assessing Officer did not adequately address this opposition. The petitioner had also corresponded with the Assessing Officer during the assessment for the year 2010-11, providing full details of the receipts from the entities in question.

Issue 5: Examination of documents and establishment that the receipts in question did not relate to the present assessment year
Upon examining the documents and submissions made by the petitioner, it became evident that the receipts alleged to be bogus accommodation entries were actually received during the year 2010-11 and had been assessed during that period. The petitioner successfully established that the foundation of the reassessment was missing, leading to the quashing of the impugned notice. The court held that it would be impermissible for the Assessing Officer to proceed with the reassessment based on such a notice when the very basis of the reassessment was found to be lacking.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petition and quashed the notice of reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 based on the established facts regarding the receipt of the alleged bogus accommodation entries in the year 2010-11.

---