Special Civil Application No. 20754 of 2016. Case: Sandeepkumar Mithulal Mehta Vs Income Tax Officer. High Court of Gujarat (India)
| Case Number | Special Civil Application No. 20754 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Vaibhavi K. Parikh, Advocate and For Respondents: Nitin K. Mehta, Advocate |
| Judges | M.R. Shah and B.N. Karia, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 143(3), 147, 148, 41(1) |
| Judgement Date | March 23, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Gujarat (India) |
Judgment:
M.R. Shah, J.
-
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.
-
The facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under;
2.1 The petitioner - assessee is engaged in the business of dealing in scrap of iron and steel, ferrous and non ferrous metal, PVC material and old scrap cables. The petitioner - assessee filed the return of income for the year under consideration on 30/09/2009 declaring the total income at Rs. 20,51,540/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and various details were called for by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner - assessee produced the books of accounts, stock register, purchase and sales vouchers for the expenses. The petitioner - assessee also produced relevant materials such as purchase orders, invoices etc. The petitioner - assessee showed the purchase of scrap from foreign sellers and for which the petitioner - assessee produced the purchase orders as well as invoices etc. to prove the genuineness of the creditors, as according to the petitioner - assessee, the petitioner -assessee purchased the goods from the foreign sellers and the amount was outstanding. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer framed the scrutiny assessment vide order dated 20/10/2011 under Section 143(3) of the Act determining/assessing the total income at Rs. 21,07,900/-. It appears that thereafter the case of the petitioner - assessee for the Assessment Year 2012-13 was selected for scrutiny assessment and various details were called for by the then Assessing Officer. As the amount due and payable to the foreign sellers/creditors was found to be outstanding since long, the Assessing Officer called for their name, postal address and confirmations of the creditors outstanding as on 31/03/2012 to justify as to why the liability in respect of such creditors aggregating to Rs. 5,58,10,755/- should not be treated as cessation of liability under Section 41(1) of the Act. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner - assessee that the assessee furnished necessary particulars asked by the Assessing Officer. However, this Court is not concerned with the same. Thereafter, on the basis of the genuineness of the creditors, doubted by the Assessing Officer while considering the scrutiny assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-13, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment for the Assessment Year...
To continue reading
Request your trial