HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-3, Thane
WRIT PETITION NO. 11441 OF 2017
JUNE 7, 2018
Ms. Ritika Agarwal, and Salman Balbale, Adv. for the Petitioner. Sham Walve, Adv. for the Respondent.
1. Ms. Agarwal, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to amend the petition by annexing as Exhibit-J, the order dated 22nd August, 2017 passed by the Assessing Officer disposing the petitioner’s objections to the re-opening notice dated 30th March, 2017 seeking to re-open the assessment for Assessment Year 2010-11. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Re-verification dispensed with.
3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the re-opening notice dated 30th March, 2017 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) seeking to re-open the assessment for Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessment for the Year 2010-11 was completed on 20th March, 2014 under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act. The reasons in support of the impugned notice is the information received from the Deputy Director of Income-Tax (INV) Unit 7(4) stating that the petitioner had a Bank Account bearing No. 36/CD/441 with Abhudaya Co-operative Bank Limited, APM, Vashi Branch, Navi Mumbai. It is alleged in the reasons that the petitioner had failed to disclose the aforesaid bank account during the assessment proceedings. The petitioner had filed its objections by letter dated 23rd May, 2017 to the reasons inter-alia pointing out that during the course of assessment proceeding, the petitioner had submitted details of its Bank Accounts including that of the Abhudaya Co-operative Bank Limited. Besides, the same Bank Account is also reflected even in their Balance Sheet which is a subject matter of consideration during the assessment proceedings. The order disposing off the objection is completely silent with regard to the petitioner’s contention that there was no failure on its part to disclose all facts with regard to the subject Bank Account during the assessment proceedings to the Department. The impugned notice being beyond the period of four years is hit by the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act and in absence of any failure to disclose the facts fully and truly, the Assessing Officer cannot exercise jurisdiction. Prima-facie, it appears that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, there shall be interim stay restraining the Revenue from acting further upon the impugned notice dated 30th March, 2017 for Assessment Year 2010-11.
4. Mr. Walve, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent.