Reassessment u/s 147 quashed for lack of genuine reason to believe; Section 148 notice held invalid

HC held that reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as the jurisdictional precondition of "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment was not satisfied. The assessee had made full and true disclosure of all material facts, including profit and loss account and detailed transactions with alleged bogus suppliers, during the original assessment. The reassessment was triggered merely because the suppliers failed to cooperate with the tax authority, amounting to a fishing and roving inquiry rather than a bona fide belief of escapement of income. HC concluded that the Assessing Officer misdirected himself in invoking Section 148 and quashed the reassessment proceedings, allowing the writ petition.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the statutory preconditions under Section 147 read with Sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening assessment on the ground of "income escaping assessment" were satisfied in respect of the relevant assessment year.

1.2 Whether the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer, namely third-party investigation findings and portal-based risk information concerning another assessee, constituted a valid "reason to believe" that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment, notwithstanding full disclosure of transactions in the original return and audited accounts.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2: Validity of reassessment proceedings under Sections 147, 148 and 148A; existence of "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment

Legal framework (as discussed by The Court)

2.1 The Court reproduced Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, emphasizing that reopening can be undertaken only if the Assessing Officer "has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment" for any assessment year, subject to Sections 148 to 153.

2.2 The Court noted the settled position that in assessment proceedings the assessee's obligation is to make full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment for that year, and that all requirements stipulated by Section 147 must be given due and equal weight.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.3 The Court found as undisputed that:

(a) The assessee filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year, declaring its net income and paying tax thereon.

(b) The total turnover was subjected to tax audit under the Act; regular books of account are maintained, audited every year, and uploaded on the portal.

(c) All transactions, including those with the third party (Vasudev Babubhai Kapadia and entities related to him), were disclosed and are reflected in the profit and loss account, as also stated in the reply dated 10.04.2025.

2.4 On examining the detailed reply to the show-cause notice under Section 148A(1), the Court recorded that the assessee had:

(a) Matched and reconciled the data provided by the department with its own books of account.

(b) Explained that the amount of Rs. 73,31,671/- did not figure in its books of account.

(c) Clarified that Rs. 1,73,89,827/- related to sales of rough diamonds to Vaibhav Enterprise (proprietorship of Janakbhai Vasudev Kapadia) pertaining to the earlier assessment year 2018-19, with supporting details offered.

2.5 The Court observed that, despite such categorical explanations, the Assessing Officer merely stated that the matters "would be looked into in detail during the assessment proceedings", thereby treating the explanation regarding Rs. 73,31,671/- cursorily and perfunctorily.

2.6 From the order under Section 148A(3) / Section 148, the Court found that the allegations of bogus purchases were entirely based on investigation in the case of the third party (Vasudev Babubhai Kapadia), where:

(a) Suspicious transactions and an undisclosed bank account were noticed.

(b) Discrepancies between his bank account and his own ITR were identified.

(c) His GSTR-1 data showed large purchases and sales, and he failed to furnish documentary evidence during inquiry.

(d) The investigating authority treated his unaccounted purchases as his unaccounted income.

2.7 The Court held that the reopening against the assessee was triggered solely because the third party and another related individual (Janakbhai Vasudev Kapadia) allegedly engaged in bogus purchases and did not cooperate with the investigation. The Assessing Officer, on that premise and portal-based risk information, sought to implicate the assessee for "bogus purchases and sales" aggregating to Rs. 5,66,44,146/-.

2.8 The Court reasoned that, where the assessee has already disclosed all the relevant transactions in its audited books and ITR, including the very transactions with the third party, and has given a detailed, transaction-wise explanation in response to the Section 148A notice, the statutory condition of "reason to believe" that the assessee's income has escaped assessment is not satisfied merely because:

(a) The third party is alleged to have unaccounted income; or

(b) The third party failed to cooperate with the revenue authorities.

2.9 The Court found that the order did not record any independent or specific satisfaction by the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee had escaped assessment. Instead, the authority had misdirected itself by transferring suspicions arising from the third party's case onto the assessee, despite full disclosure by the latter.

2.10 The Court also inferred that the reliance on portal-based information and the Risk Management Strategy of the CBDT, without objective evaluation of the assessee's books and explanations, resulted in a "fishing and roving inquiry" rather than a reasoned formation of belief based on tangible material indicating escapement of income of the assessee.

Conclusions

2.11 The Court concluded that:

(a) The statutory preconditions under Section 147 for reopening were not satisfied, as there was no proper "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee had escaped assessment.

(b) The proceedings under Section 148 were "uncalled for", being founded on misdirection in assessing the transactions of third parties, notwithstanding the assessee's full and true disclosure of its own transactions and income.

(c) The perfunctory manner in which the Assessing Officer dealt with the assessee's explanation, particularly in relation to Rs. 73,31,671/-, further showed absence of a legally sustainable belief of escapement of income.

2.12 Accordingly, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(3) for the relevant assessment year were quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.

---