TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of Rule. 1.2 Heard learned advocate Mr. Hadrik Vora for the petitioner and learned advocate for the Respondent. 2. What is prayed by the petitioner assessee in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to set aside Notice dated 30.03.2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessment year 2012-13. By the said order, the assessing officer has sought to reopen the assessment of the petitioner in respect of the year under consideration stating inter alia that he had reasons to believe that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2012-13 escaped assessment within the meaning of section 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king to reopen the assessment of the petitioner in respect of the same assessment year 2012-13. 3.4 In order to complete the facts, it may be stated that the second notice for reassessment was based on the ground that the petitioner assessee had sold its equity shares to M/s. Tilak Finance Ltd. and entered into transaction of Rs. 1,04,85,475/- to claim exemption under section 10(38) of the Act. 4. In wake of the above bare facts therefore, the question arises for consideration is whether it was permissible in law for the assessing officer to issue the second notice under Section 148 of the Act when once there was already a notice issued in exercise of the same powers under the very provision in respect of the same assessment year 2012-13.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d assessment including that which may come to his notice during the assessment. Once such notice is issued and with that the assessment has been reopened, can there be another notice for reopening? In other words, during the pendency of the proceedings for reassessment, can there be another notice also for the same purpose, may be based on different reasons?" 5.1.1 Supplying the reasons as to why the second notice under section 148 for reopening of the assessment would be impermissible, the Division Bench observed that as long as the assessment was at large by virtue of the first notice of reopening, the question of issuing second notice for the same purpose would not arise. 5.1.2 The Division Bench observed in paragraph 17, "There can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n for the revenue may arise. It was explained thus, "In a given case, it may so happen that notice for reopening may have been issued within the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, on the reasons recorded, which may have no relevance to non disclosure of material facts. After four years it is entirely possible that the Revenue may chance upon further materials not disclosed by the assessee in the original return or during the assessment proceedings which may have a bearing on income escaping assessment. The suggestion that if additional information is available with the Revenue later on, it is always open for the Assessing Officer to withdraw the first notice and issue second notice including both sets of reason....