Court sets aside order on objections by assessee re: legality and jurisdiction of notice under Income Tax Act.

The court set aside the order disposing of objections raised by the assessee regarding the legality and jurisdiction of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that the Assessing Officer failed to adequately address the objections in a detailed and reasoned manner, emphasizing the need for a proper disposal of objections. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to reconsider and pass a fresh speaking order within six weeks, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and jurisdiction of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Adequacy of the reasons provided for reopening the assessment.
3. Whether the reopening of assessment constitutes a change of opinion.
4. Compliance with the procedural requirements for reopening an assessment after four years.
5. Proper disposal of objections raised by the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Jurisdiction of the Notice Issued Under Section 148:
The writ applicant, a private limited company, challenged the notice dated 31.03.2019 issued under Section 148 for the Assessment Year 2012-13, claiming it was illegal and without jurisdiction. The notice was issued for reopening the assessment based on information received from the DDIT (Investigation), Surat, which indicated suspicious transactions involving high-value credits and debits without economic rationale.

2. Adequacy of the Reasons Provided for Reopening the Assessment:
The reasons for reopening included high-value internal transfer credits and RTGS/NEFT receipts followed by direct import remittances, which lacked economic rationale. The AO noted unexplained credit entries in the bank account of the assessee amounting to Rs. 255,69,58,651/-, and discrepancies in purchases shown from an individual who did not report business income. These reasons led the AO to believe that income had escaped assessment.

3. Whether the Reopening of Assessment Constitutes a Change of Opinion:
The writ applicant argued that all details were provided during the original assessment under Section 143(3) and that the reopening was based on the same material, constituting a change of opinion. However, the revenue contended that the information received post-assessment indicated failure to disclose material facts, justifying the reopening.

4. Compliance with the Procedural Requirements for Reopening an Assessment After Four Years:
The notice for reopening was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The revenue argued that the reopening was justified due to the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose all material facts. The necessary sanction from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was obtained as per Section 151 of the Act.

5. Proper Disposal of Objections Raised by the Assessee:
The writ applicant raised objections to the notice on both jurisdictional and merit grounds, which were rejected by the AO. The court found that the AO did not properly address the objections, failing to provide a detailed and reasoned order. The court emphasized that disposing of objections is a quasi-judicial function requiring proper application of mind and detailed reasoning, as established in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd and SABH Infrastructure Ltd.

Judgment:
The court concluded that the AO did not adequately deal with the objections raised by the assessee, resulting in a mechanical and non-meaningful order. The order disposing of the objections dated 26.08.2019 was set aside. The matter was remitted to the AO to reconsider the objections and pass a fresh speaking order within six weeks. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, allowing the assessee to challenge any adverse order before the appropriate forum.

---