9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondent. 2. Having regard to the controversy which is in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Varun Patel waives service of notice of rule for respondent. 4. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021 bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032080806(1) issued u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act'] proposing to reopen the assessment for assessment year 2016-17 and impugned order dated 25.02.2022 bearing No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, it was not open for the respondent to proceed with the reassessment proceedings for the year under consideration and the notice being void, can never be considered as served. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice, the petitioner has preferred this petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the reassessment proceedings initiated by the respondents for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 6. This Court [Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nisha Thakore] passed the following order on 14.02.2024: "We have heard Mr. Jaimin Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant. Let Notice be issued to the respondent for final disposal, returnable on 15.03.2022. Let there be an ad-interim or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner raised the objection on 12.01.2022 that no notice was issued in name of the petitioner and therefore, the proceedings initiated for reopening should be dropped. 7.1 Learned advocate Mr. Jaimin R. Dave referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Giraben Atulbhai Shah vs. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 26/2022 to point out that in this case, the notice was quashed and set aside as the reason for reopening of assessment proceedings were found to be factually incorrect. It was also submitted that in case of the petitioner when no notice was served by the respondent in name of the petitioner no reassessment proceedings can be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 is the copy of information flagged on INSIGHT portal. From the information it is seen that the assessee has sold immovable properties for an aggregate value amounting to Rs. 7,47,00,000/-. On verification of case record for the year under consideration, it is seen from the return filed by the assessee that gross total income for A.Y. 2016-17 is merely Rs. 3,42,894/- and capitals gain of only Rs. 3536/- have been offered to tax as Short term capital gain u/s. 111A of the Act on account of sale of shares. From the above, it is clear that the assessee had not shown sale consideration of Rs. 7,47,00,000/- and did not offer the same for tax in the return of income filed for the year under consideration. Considering the facts of escapement of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, reopening has been initiated. The same is evident from reasons provided for reopening. In view of the above, the notice under section 148 of the income Tax Act is completely valid and legal. 15. With reference to contentions in para 3.4 the respondent denies each and every allegation, averment and contention raised in this para. It is submitted that the notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 31.03.2021 issued was in the name of Mrs. Giraben Atulbhai Shah due to technical glitch in the income tax portal. It is important to note here that assessment proceedings have been carried out at Assessment Worklist on Income Tax Portal in the name of Asit Haribhai Vora, PAN ACJPV1280C. It is further submitted that notice u/s. 148 was issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032078798(1) which was duly served upon the assessee. From the above, it is clear that the contention of the assessee that notice u/s. 148 of the Act belonging to the other person i.e. Giraben Atulbhai Shah PAN:ALHPS1801P, is wrong and baseless. In view of the above, the objection raised by the assessee on this count is not sustainable and hence rejected." 11. The above observation of the respondent is contrary to the record and there is no justification given in the order disposing the objection for service of the notice in name of other assessee. Merely because the notice is issued in name of the assessee but not served, cannot be considered as an effective issuance and service of notice for reopening of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
