TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 959
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in a nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order and be pleased to (a) Quashed and set aside the impugned notices / order as appeared at Annexure 'F', Annexure 'G' and Annexure 'I'. (b) Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay the implementation and operation of the notices / orders as mentioned in para (a) herein above. And stay the furthers proceedings for the AY 2017- 18. (c) Any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice. (d) To provide for the cost of this petition." 4. The challenge made in this petition is against notice dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure-F) issued by the respondent authority under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1961' for short) and notice dated 20.05.2021 (Annexure-G) issued by the respondent authority under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 of the Act, 1961 as well as order dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure-I) passed by the respondent, by which, the objections raised by the petitioner for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2017-2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sues as mentioned below, which need further clarification:- Issues as per reasons recorded for reopening As per the information received from the credible source that the assessee company has deposited case of Rs.1,46,42,000/- during the demontization period (i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 31.11.2016) in it bank account. It is further worth to mention that, on going through the information available in Insight Portal, it is seen that during the inquiry, the assessee company has stated that it has received payment of various services. That case was received at various outlets against the bills payments and the same was thereafter transferred to the respective service providers. The assessee company earns commission income against the service provided. In these circumstances, deep investigation is required in this case. The assessee found to be the owner of the money appearing in bank account(s). Further, the nature and source of such deposits made in the bank accounts were not at all explained. On perusal of information so received from Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad. It is noticed that the assessee company Easy Pay Private Limited (AADCE6257B) is found to be the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ercise of powers under section 147 of the Act, particularly after the amendments made with effect from 1.4.1989. Such tangible material need not be alien to the record." 8. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Bhatt appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Assessing Officer has issued the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 as he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and there is no change of opinion as canvassed on behalf of the petitioner so as to render the impugned notice bad in law because the record itself reflects that the petitioner was not in a position to explain the nature and source of deposit in the bank accounts after the demonitisation period. 8.1) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt would submit that in order to issue notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 tangible material can be from the material available on record itself. It was pointed out that in response to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, 1961, the petitioner did not submit the required details and therefore, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment for failure on part of the petitioner in dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he bank account during the demonitisation period. 11. Therefore, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is required to be looked considering the facts so as to enable the Assessing Officer to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment on the basis of materials which was available with him. During the course of regular assessment, the Assessing Officer had asked the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit after demonitisation which was explained by the assessee in reply to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, 1961 which is accepted by the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, 1961. Therefore, ratio laid down by this Court in case of Swati Malove Divetia V. Income Tax Officer reported in [2018] 98 taxmann.com 447 (Gujarat) is applicable to the facts of the present case as the Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons ignoring the reply of the assessee during the course of regular assessment and hence the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act lacks validity and the Assessing Officer proceeded on erroneous premise. 12. This Court in cas....