TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. For the sake of brevity we advert to the facts stated in Writ Petition No. 2827 of 2022. 2. This Petition under Article 226 impugns notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') dated 31st March 2021 issued by Respondent No. 1 proposing to reassess the income for the AY 2015-16 and the order dated 24th January 2022, rejecting the objections raised by Petitioner challenging the validity of the said notice. 3. The reasons for opening are as under: "The assessee company filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 28.09.2015. Further, the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 15.11.2017 assessing total income at Rs. Nil. Subsequently, a credible information has been rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Petitioner responded to the reasons giving all details and explanations. The relevant para is as under: "3. In the reasons for reopening , it is mentioned that you have received the information from ITO(I&CI), Unit 2(3), Mumbai that the Assessee has shown a total profit of Rs. 2,07,22,019/- from trading in shares in F&O/Commodities / Currency. The above profit was verified by I&CI in the course of verification made after SEBI passed orders in case of reversal trades and accommodation entries. The Assessee has traded through two share brokers namely Master Capital Services Ltd. and Skung Trade Link Ltd. The Global Report of Skung Trade Link Ltd. shows loss of Rs. 84,94,990. It appeared that the profit shown above was not a net profit ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jected the objections on 24th January 2022 and hence the Petitioner was constrained to file this Petition on 14th March 2022. 7. The Respondent no. 1 by their reply to this Petition defends its reopening by stating: "4.2 Merely not mentioning the year-wise amount and exact amount in the reasons for reopening does not change the character of non-genuine transactions as genuine. During the said assessment proceeding, the assessee filed an objection dated 20.12.2021 stating all this transaction undertaken by the assessee are shown in books of accounts and profit of Rs. 2,07,33,019/- truly & fully disclosed in the return of income. However, nowhere in the objection has the assessee given any details of dates and amounts of transactions in st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld that where primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed the AO is not entitled to reopen the assessment on a change of opinion. It is held that while considering the material on record, when one view is conclusively taken by AO, it would not be open for the AO to reopen the assessment based on the very same material and take another view. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 has held that: "... the reasons for the formation of the belief must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income-tax Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....once the Petitioner provided the all the details, explanations and documents against the reasons for reopening. The AO considering the principle of 'shifting of onus' under the evidence act, must necessarily carefully examine the material and then give particulars and reason/s to disbelieve the assessee, whilst rejecting the objections, to shift the onus on the assessee, as failure to do so, does not discharge the onus shifted upon him (AO) by the assessee by submitting all documents and explanations, and provides no reason for the Court to disbelieve the assessee. 15. The Supreme Court in the case of R V E Venkatachala Gounder v Arulmigu Vishwesaraswami & V. P. Temple & anr. (2003) 8 SCC 752 relying on A Raghavamma v A Chenchamma AIR 1964....