USHA EXPORTS Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the notice dtd. 28/3/2019 seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13, and the order dtd. 4/9/2019 disposing of the objections raised by the Petitioner to the said notice.

(2.) The Petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and exports of diamonds. The Petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 20/9/2012 declaring total income of Rs.29,76,330.00. The Respondent No.1- Assessing Officer sought details from the Petitioner regarding purchases, sundry creditors and sundry debtors and a notice to that effect under sec. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 31/7/2014. The Petitioner replied to the said notice on 19/8/2014 and submitted details as sought for. An assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 19/2/2015 under sec. 143(3) of the Act without making any disallowances of the purchases.

(3.) The Petitioner received a notice from the Assessing Officer dtd. 29/9/2012, seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13. The reasons supplied along with notice were as follows: In this case, the assessee has filed the Return of Income for the AY 2012-13 declaring Total income of at Rs.29,76,330.00 on 29/09/2012. Information gathered by this office reveals that the captioned assessee is one of the beneficiaries who purchased HAWALA bills from companies;managed by the Rajendra Jain Group, who are engaged in the business/ activity of issuing bogus bills without delivery of goods as per requirements of their customers. Information collected by the office of DGIT (Inv), Mumbai also confirmed the fact that the above assessee is a beneficiary on account of purchasing bogus bills without delivery of goods from parties mentioned below for the FY 2011-12 relevant to the assessment year 2012-13.