High Court quashes Income Tax Act notice for lack of disclosure, emphasizes clear reasons. Assessing Officer criticized for reliance without verification. Breaches of guidelines noted.

The High Court quashed the impugned notice and order under the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the reasons for reopening the assessment did not establish a failure to disclose material facts. The Court emphasized the necessity of a clear indication of non-disclosure in the reasons supplied and criticized the Assessing Officer's reliance on external sources without independent verification. Breaches of guidelines and principles of natural justice were also noted, leading to the Court allowing the petition due to the lack of justification for the reopening and procedural irregularities during the assessment process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Impugning notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and order disposing off petitioner's objections.

Analysis:
1. The High Court considered the impugned notice dated 31st March, 2019, and the order dated 16th October, 2019. The reopening of the assessment after four years from the relevant assessment year was challenged. The Court noted that the proviso to Section 147 of the Act applies when the assessment under Section 143(3) has been completed, shifting the onus to the respondents to disclose the material fact that the petitioner failed to disclose fully and truly.

2. The Court analyzed the reasons recorded for reopening and found that they did not establish a failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose all material facts. Merely stating a failure to disclose in the reasons without clear indication is insufficient to justify reopening under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. The Court referred to a judgment emphasizing the necessity of a clear indication of non-disclosure in the reasons supplied.

3. The Court expressed confusion over the reasons recorded, which were based on a survey conducted before the assessment order for the relevant year. The Court highlighted discrepancies in the amounts mentioned in the reasons for reopening and the actual contract details provided by the petitioner during the assessment proceedings. The petitioner had disclosed all relevant details during the assessment process, making the reopening unjustified.

4. It was observed that the Assessing Officer did not verify the facts independently but relied on information from another source, leading to a lack of direct, correct, and relevant material for reopening. The Court cited a case emphasizing that reopening notices must be based on the assessing officer's own satisfaction, not borrowed satisfaction.

5. The Court also noted a breach of guidelines in matters of reopening assessments, as directed by the Delhi High Court. The failure to enclose relevant documents along with the reasons for reopening was highlighted. Additionally, the Assessing Officer's reliance on judgments without providing copies to the assessee breached principles of natural justice.

6. The Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned notice and order, citing the lack of justification for the reopening and the failure to adhere to legal principles during the assessment process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Bombay High Court showcases the thorough examination of the issues involved and the legal principles applied in determining the validity of the impugned notice and order under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

---