Chandni J. Ahuja v. UOI - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Sun Tan Trading Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2024 TaxPub(DT) 727 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Darpan P. Chandaliya v. ITO 2023 TaxPub(DT) 5839 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Nivi Trading Ltd. v. Union of India 2015 TaxPub(DT) 2227 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Ors. 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0734 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. Etc. 1997 TaxPub(DT) 1265 (SC)
REFERRED Income Tax Officer v. Biju Patnaik 1991 TaxPub(DT) 0880 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1166 (Bom-HC) IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT K.R. SHRIRAM & NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. Chandni J. Ahuja v. UOI Writ Petition No. 231 of 2016 1 March, 2024 Petitioner by: Chandni J. Ahuja,. Respondents-Revenue by: Prakash Chhotaray. ORAL JUDGMENT *K.R. Shriram, J.* 1. Petitioner, a Chartered Accountant by profession, had filed return of income for assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. The return for all the three years were processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act). Thereafter, petitioner received identically worded notices all dated 20-3-2015 for assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 seeking to reopen the assessment of those years. The reasons in support of the impugned notices are also identical, except the years and figures vary. The reasons read as under: In this case as per the CIB information you have entered into huge share transaction for assessment year 2010-11. As per the information received the value of the share transaction is Rs. 29,43,22,193. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and, therefore, to verify the above aspect, it is necessary to reopen the case for assessment year 2010-11. xxxxxxxxxxxxx In this case as per the CIB information you have entered into huge share transaction for assessment year 2011-12. As per the information received the value of the share transaction is Rs. 18,11,26,743. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and, therefore, to verify the above aspect, it is necessary to reopen the case for assessment year 2011-12. xxxxxxxxxxxxx In this case as per the CIB information you have entered into huge share transaction for assessment year 2012-13. As per the information received the value of the share transaction is Rs. 66,16,51,715. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and, therefore, to verify the above aspect, it is necessary to reopen the case for assessment year 2012-13. xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2. Petitioner filed detailed objections dated 27-7-2015 which came to be rejected by an Order dated 6-11-2015. In the order rejecting objections, it is recorded the information received from CIB may not be genuine and therefore requires further investigation. These facts in itself are enough to form an independent belief to reopen the assessment .... Therefore, we have to note that even in the order rejecting the objections itself there is an admission that information from CIB, based on which the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued, may not be genuine. 3. At this stage, petitioner filed the present petition which came to be admitted by an order dated 13-4-2016. The order reads as under: 1. Heard. Rule. Respondent waives service. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1166 (Bom-HC)

IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT

K.R. SHRIRAM & NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

Chandni J. Ahuja v. UOI

Writ Petition No. 231 of 2016

1 March, 2024

Petitioner by: Chandni J. Ahuja,.

Respondents-Revenue by: Prakash Chhotaray.

ORAL JUDGMENT

K.R. Shriram, J.

1. Petitioner, a Chartered Accountant by profession, had filed return of income for assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. The return for all the three years were processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act). Thereafter, petitioner received identically worded notices all dated 20-3-2015 for assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 seeking to reopen the assessment of those years. The reasons in support of the impugned notices are also identical, except the years and figures vary. The reasons read as under:

In this case as per the CIB information you have entered into huge share transaction for assessment year 2010-11. As per the information received the value of the share transaction is Rs. 29,43,22,193.

In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and, therefore, to verify the above aspect, it is necessary to reopen the case for assessment year 2010-11.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

In this case as per the CIB information you have entered into huge share transaction for assessment year 2011-12. As per the information received the value of the share transaction is Rs. 18,11,26,743.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

In this case as per the CIB information you have entered into huge share transaction for assessment year 2012-13. As per the information received the value of the share transaction is Rs. 66,16,51,715.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

2. Petitioner filed detailed objections dated 27-7-2015 which came to be rejected by an Order dated 6-11-2015. In the order rejecting objections, it is recorded the information received from CIB may not be genuine and therefore requires further investigation. These facts in itself are enough to form an independent belief to reopen the assessment .... Therefore, we have to note that even in the order rejecting the objections itself there is an admission that information from CIB, based on which the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued, may not be genuine.

3. At this stage, petitioner filed the present petition which came to be admitted by an order dated 13-4-2016. The order reads as under:

1. Heard. Rule. Respondent waives service.