Gujarat HC quashes reassessment under section 148A(d) for non-application of mind by AO despite accepted transaction explanations

Gujarat HC quashed reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. The AO reopened assessment solely because petitioner failed to furnish Sales and Purchase Register, despite accepting explanations for all six questioned transactions. Court held AO acted with non-application of mind, concluding income escapement without material evidence on record. AO ignored that petitioner had filed return with audit report, balance sheet, and P&L account. Petition allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Alleged escapement of income for Assessment Year 2018-2019.
4. Non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
5. Failure to consider the petitioner's explanations and documents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the order under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 29.03.2024 passed under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contending that it was issued without proper consideration of the explanations and documents provided. The court observed that the Assessing Officer failed to justify the reasons for reopening the assessment and concluded that the order was passed with total non-application of mind.

2. Validity of the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner also sought to quash the notice under section 148 of the Act issued on 29.03.2024 for AY 2018-2019. The court found that the notice was issued based on the same flawed reasoning and lack of evidence as the order under section 148A(d). Consequently, the notice was also deemed invalid.

3. Alleged escapement of income for Assessment Year 2018-2019:
The respondent claimed that income amounting to Rs. 126,03,57,840/- had escaped assessment due to the petitioner's failure to explain certain transactions. The petitioner provided explanations and documentary evidence for each transaction, including sales and purchase data from GSTR-I, which the Assessing Officer ignored. The court noted that the Assessing Officer accepted the petitioner's explanations for most transactions but concluded there was escapement of income solely due to the non-furnishing of the sales and purchase register.

4. Non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer:
The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer's decision to reopen the assessment was made without proper application of mind. The officer relied on party-wise sales and purchase totals from GSTR-I without any supporting material or information. The court found this approach to be mechanical and lacking in substantive reasoning.

5. Failure to consider the petitioner's explanations and documents:
The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer ignored the explanations and documents provided, which clearly established that there was no escapement of income. The court agreed, noting that the petitioner had submitted detailed reports and ledger accounts, which the Assessing Officer failed to consider adequately.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Assessing Officer's actions were unjustified and lacked proper reasoning. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and both the impugned order under section 148A(d) and the notice under section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The rule was made absolute to the aforesaid extent, and no order as to costs was issued.

---