BAKULBHAI RAMANLAL PATEL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dt. 25th March, 2010 issued under S. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) reopening the assessment of the petitioner for asst. yr. 2003-04 as well as the notice dt. 16th June, 2010 issued by the respondent under s. 143(2) of the Act proceeding with the reopening.

(2.) THE petitioner, an individual, is engaged in the business of commission agent in transport and also runs a STD/PCO booth. The petitioner was a partner in a firm M/s Shivshakti Petroleum Services receiving remuneration and interest therefrom. For the asst. yr. 2003-04, the petitioner filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 2,18,850 on 27th Nov., 2003 under S. 139(1) of the Act, which came to be assessed and accepted by the AO. Subsequently, after a period of about six years, the impugned notice has been issued along with brief reasons for reopening the assessment.

(3.) IN response to the petition, an affidavit-in-reply dt. 15th Nov., 2010 has been filed by Mr. C.M. Christian, the AO who had recorded the reasons and initiated the proceedings under S. 147 of the Act for the limited purpose of explaining that the reasons have been recorded on 23rd March, 2010, however, on account of bona fide mistake, he had failed to mention the date while recording the reasons. Another affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr. G.D. Khara, the present AO, wherein it has inter alia been stated that the petitioner filed return of income for asst. yr. 2004-05 under S. 139(1) of the Act and the return was assessed and processed by the respondent under S. 143(1) of the Act. It is also averred that his predecessor-in-office had recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment for asst. yr. 2003-04 of the petitioner.