Court quashes order, directs fresh consideration of objections, emphasizes providing relevant information.

The court quashed the order disposing of objections and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to address all objections, provide a reasoned order, and allow the writ applicant to be heard. The court emphasized providing relevant information for addressing objections adequately within two months, with the option for the writ applicant to challenge any adverse order. The court clarified its observations were prima facie and did not indicate an opinion on the case's merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the reopening of assessment for A.Y. 2014-15.
3. Adequacy of the reasons provided for reopening the assessment.
4. Consideration of objections raised by the writ applicant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Notice Issued Under Section 148:
The writ applicant, a Multi-State Scheduled Cooperative Bank, challenged the notice dated 30.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment of M/s. Siddhi Cooperative Bank Limited for A.Y. 2014-15. The primary contention was that the notice should have been issued to the writ applicant bank, which had taken over M/s. Siddhi Cooperative Bank Limited w.e.f. 09.04.2019. The court observed that the notice was incorrectly issued to M/s. Siddhi Cooperative Bank Limited instead of the writ applicant bank.

2. Validity of the Reopening of Assessment:
The reopening of the assessment was based on information received from the DDIT (Inv.) Unit-2, Surat, indicating that M/s. Siddhi Cooperative Bank Limited had transmitted huge amounts to various foreign countries. The court noted that the reopening was for the A.Y. 2014-15, a period during which the writ applicant bank was not in the picture. The court emphasized that the reopening should have been properly addressed to the correct entity.

3. Adequacy of the Reasons Provided:
The reasons for reopening the assessment included allegations that M/s. Siddhi Cooperative Bank Limited had made foreign remittances for twelve entities, which were managed by Afroze Hassan Fatta and his accomplices. These transactions were alleged to be sham transactions for tax evasion purposes. The court found that the reasons provided by the Assessing Officer did not include the detailed transactions explained by the Revenue's counsel during the hearing. The court highlighted that the writ applicant had no opportunity to address these specific transactions as they were not part of the original reasons provided.

4. Consideration of Objections Raised by the Writ Applicant:
The writ applicant raised several objections, including that it did not have a license to deal with foreign remittances and that the twelve entities identified did not have any accounts with the bank. The court observed that the Assessing Officer did not meaningfully address these objections in the order disposing of them. The court directed the Assessing Officer to undertake a fresh exercise to consider all the objections raised by the writ applicant, including those related to the new transactions brought up during the hearing.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the order passed by the Assessing Officer disposing of the objections and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer was instructed to apply his mind to all the objections and provide a reasoned order after giving the writ applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court clarified that the writ applicant should be given all relevant information to address the objections adequately. The entire exercise was to be completed within two months, with the possibility for the writ applicant to challenge any adverse order by filing a fresh writ application. The court made it clear that its observations were prima facie and did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

---