TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eturnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. Since a short issue is involved in the present writ petition, the same is taken up for final hearing today itself. 3. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the issuance of writ of certiorari or writ, direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order under clause (3) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequent notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 23.03.2025 for the Assessment year 2019-20 to reassess the income and further to direct the respondent not to proceed further and/or pass final order under Section 143(3) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 41,72,800/- under Section 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment / income. 4.3. It is further the case of the petitioner that during the course of assessment proceedings, the petitioner categorically denied the connection with the alleged WhatsApp chat and submitted that the conversation does not pertain to him. It is, therefore, submitted that without considering the submission of the petitioner, the respondent passed an order under Section 153C of the Act on 23.03.2023 determining assessed income of Rs. 57,78,710/- after making addition of Rs. 41,72,800/- under Section 69 of the Act. 4.4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.2023, the petitioner filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeals), which came to be allowed vid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Court by way of present writ petition. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Vora for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that the petitioner filed a detailed reply on 21.03.2025 primarily contending that the assessment under Section 153C of the Act had already been completed on the basis of the very same facts resulting into an order dated 23.03.2023 wherein addition was made and therefore, it was not open for the respondent to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment on the basis of the very same material. It is submitted that when all the relevant material though was supplied by the petitioner to the Assessing Officer, it has been recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner assessee has not fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... making the addition. 6.1. It is further contended that in the instant case, the existence of seized incriminating material, which prima facie demonstrates an escapement of income, read in conjunction with the accepted audit objection on this very issue warrants reopening under Section 148 of the Act. Therefore, reopening is on the basis of the audit objection to the effect that assessment in the case of the assessee has not been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the same constitutes information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Thus, it is urged that on the basis of audit objection, the assessment was reopen under Section 148 of the Act. 7. We have heard the learned advocates app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (SC) and Andaman Tiber Industries v. CCE 281 CTR 241 (SC). It was further submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of Sunil Agrawal reported in 64 Taxmann.com 107 had held that the statements of the other parties cannot be relied unless an opportunity of cross-examination is provided to the aggrieved party. 7.5. In this case, giving of opportunity of cross-examination by the AO is important and necessary to take the case to logical conclusion. The AO is relying upon the statement of Mr. Ashokbhai Patel who has stated that the transactions on the incriminating material are of the appellant who had been nicknamed as "Suresh Engineer". However, the appellant, during post Search proceedings or during assessment proceedings, has....