AGRAWAL JV Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present petition under Article 226 is directed against notice dated 30.12.2010 of the respondent No.1 -Income Tax Officer issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereby respondent No.1 has sought to reopen the assessment in case of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2007 -08. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus to get the said notice quashed and set aside. The petitioner has also prayed to set aside order dated 05.12.2011 whereby respondent No.1 rejected the objections of the petitioner to the reopening of the assessment.

(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr.R.K. Patel appears for the petitioner, and learned advocate Ms.Pauromi B. Sheth is for the respondents -Income Tax Authorities.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner submitted with reference to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for assessment that respondent No.1 while issuing the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, acted on a wrong premise inasmuch as it was mentioned in the reasons that the assessee's return of income for the Assessment Year in question showed that the Net Profit was Rs.02,43,21,076/ -, which was not the correct figure and the Net Profit for the relevant Assessment Year Rs.03,61,74,866/ -. Therefore, it was submitted that re -opining was upon a misconception of facts. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer acted on the ground that deduction under Section 80 IA(4) was wrongly granted and that he wanted to verify the factum of ownership. Learned advocate further submitted that the deduction under the said provision was considered and the assessment order was passed. The same was passed after scrutiny assessment, thus the Assessing Officer closely verified the material before him.