9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice of rule on behalf of respondent. 2. With consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed as under: "11. The petitioner, therefore, pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus 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 implementatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired format. 6.3) The petitioner submitted various charts showing cash deposit in the bank account of the petitioner during the financial years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. 6.4) Thereafter the petitioner received notice dated 3rd September, 2019 under section 142(1) of the Act, 1961 for providing various information. As per paragraph no.20 of the said notice, detailed explanation was asked regarding cash deposited during the demonitisation period and as per paragraph no.22, the Assessing Officer called for detailed explanation in reference to cash deposited in the bank accounts along with point no. 26 to explain the cash on hand as on 8th November, 2016 i.e. the date of demonitisation which was subsequently deposited in the bank by the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst 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 owner of the money appearing in the bank account(s) to the tune of Rs.1,46,12,000/- and hence, the financial transaction as discussed above is clearly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , if a certain claim of the assessee is not examined, no queries raised, no answers elicited, it can not be stated that merely because the Assessing Officer did not reject such a claim in the final order of assessment, he should be deemed to have expressed an opinion with respect to such a claim and any reopening of an assessment of this nature even within a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year would amount to change of opinion. We are further of the opinion that in any such case, as long as there is some tangible material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer can form a belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, it would be permissible to reopen the assessment in exercise of powers under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demonitisation period. Investigation was also carried out by DDIT by issuing summons under section 131(1A) of the Act, 1961 in the year 2018 and the petitioner furnished all the required details in compliance of such summons. Thus while passing the order under section 143(3) on 20.11.2019, the Assessing Officer considered the summons issued by the DDIT as well as the reply of the assessee pursuant to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, 1961. From the reply of the petitioner to the notice under section1 142(1) of the Act, 1961 it appears that the petitioner had furnished all the required details including the bank statement for the period from 8.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 and thereafter the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing 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 repl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
