SANDEEPKUMAR MITHULAL MEHTA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 21/03/2016 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by which the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2009-10 alleging inter alia that the income chargeable to tax for the relevant Assessment Year has escaped the assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act.

(2.) The facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under;

(3.) Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - assessee has vehemently submitted that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act and reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year 2009-10 is bad in law and against the proviso of Section 147 of the Act. It is submitted by Ms. Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - assessee that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2009-10 is sought to be reopened beyond the period of four years from the relevant Assessment Year, and therefore, unless and until the condition precedent as per proviso to Section 147 of the Act are complied with i.e. unless and until it is found that there was any suppression of material fact and there was any non-disclosure on the part of the petitioner - assessee in not disclosing true and correct facts for the Assessment Year, the Assessing Officer is not justified in reopening the assessment. It is submitted by Ms. Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - assessee that in the present case the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment for the Assessment Year 2009-10 doubting the transactions with the foreign creditors i.e. (1) AL - Rahim Closeout Inc. & (2) AL-Mahaseel Scrap Trading C. LL.C. and that too on the basis of the reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2012-13. It is submitted that the transactions in question, which are now sought to be doubted and /or genuineness of which is now sought to be considered, were in fact considered earlier while framing the scrutiny assessment. It is submitted that at the time of scrutiny assessment, the petitioner - assessee did produce the relevant materials, more particularly, books of accounts, purchase orders, invoices etc. to prove the genuineness of the creditors with respect to the transactions in question, which are now doubted by the Assessing Officer. It is submitted that only thereafter the Assessing Officer framed the scrutiny assessment. It is submitted that therefore as such it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the petitioner - assessee in not disclosing true and correct facts necessary for the purpose of assessment.