AMAR JEWELLERS LTD. V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

SCA/17598/2019

AI Insights

Amar Jewellers Ltd. filed a writ application challenging the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which sought to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The reopening was based on information from the Investigation Wing regarding suspicious transactions involving Swastik Corporation, a proprietary concern with which Amar Jewellers had dealings. The court examined the procedural validity of the notice and the substantive grounds for reopening the assessment, including the alleged non-disclosure of material facts by Amar Jewellers. The court concluded that the reopening was justified based on the new information and the admissions made by the proprietor of Swastik Corporation during a survey.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 748817 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors. vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Ors. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors., Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KALPANA RAVAL
• Assessee Lawyers: TUSHAR HEMANI; VAIBHAVI PARIKH
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2013-14; Bogus purchase bills; Income Tax; Reopening of assessment
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 142(1); 132; 153A

Judgement Text

"C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17598 of 2019 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Sd/- and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Sd/- ========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? No ========================================================== AMAR JEWELLERS LTD. Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ========================================================== Appearance: MR. TUSHAR HEMANI, LD. SR. COUNSEL WITH MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS KALPANA K RAVAL(1046) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 22/03/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Page 1 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs; “(A) quash and set aside the impugned notice at Annexure-A to this petition. (B) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay the implementation and operation of the notice at Annexure-A to this petition and stay the further proceedings for the Assessment Year 2013-14; (C ) any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice; (D) to provide for the cost of this petition.” 2. The facts giving rise to this writ application may be summarized as under; 2.1 The writ applicant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short “the Act, 1956”). The Company is engaged in the business of Gold & Jewellery. During the Financial Year 2012-13, relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14 (i.e,. the year under consideration), the writ applicant claims to have made various purchases including the purchases from a proprietary concern viz “Swastik Corporation” and according to the writ applicant, such purchases are duly reflected in the audited annual accounts. 2.2 The search action under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 07.08.2013 in the cases of Amar Group of Page 2 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 Surat wherein the case of the writ applicant herein was also covered. Later, notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued by the then Assessing Officer on 19.08.2014 for the year under consideration. The writ applicant filed its return of income on 20.10.2014 in response to the notice issued under Section 153A declaring its total income at Rs.12,80,15, 570/-. 2.3 The then Assessing Officer vide notice dated 11.12.2015 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act called for various details including the details relating to the purchases made during the year under consideration exceeding Rs.1 Lakh. 2.4 The writ applicant vide letter dated 04.01.2016, furnished all the relevant details including the details relating to the purchases. 2.5 The Assessing Officer, thereafter, proceeded to pass the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act dated 28.03.2016 without making any addition in respect of the purchases. 2.6 It appears that thereafter the respondent No.3 issued the impugned notice dated 28.03.2019 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the case of the writ applicant for the year under consideration. In such circumstances, referred to above, the writ applicant is here before this Court with the present writ application. Page 3 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 3. We have heard Mr. Tushar Hemani, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh, the learned advocate appearing for the writ applicant and Ms. Kalpana Raval, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue. 4. The reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of reopening are as under; “Brief details of the Assessee. The assessee company filed its return of income on 20.10.2014 showing total income of Rs.12,80,15,570/-. An order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act was passed on 28.03.2016 determining assessed income of Rs.12,84,15,570/-. The assessee company is Jewellers. 2. This office is in possession of a piece of information disseminated by Investigation Wing, Mumbai. An enquiry was carried by the Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-4(2), Mumbai in the case of Swastik Corporation (Prop Shri Bijal Ashok Shah), after information was received about the suspicious financial transaction entered into by them. Further this office is also in possession ofa piece of information disseminated by Investigation Wing, Surat. An enquiry was carried by the Dy. Director of Income Tax (inv.), Unit-2, Surat in the case of M/s. A. Kumar & Others concerns connected to it, after information was received about the suspicious financial transaction entered into by them. 2.1 During the course of survey proceedings on 14.01.2017, statement of Shri Bijal Ashok Shah, Prop. M/s. Swastik Corporation was received on oath. In the statement, he admitted that he has done cash transactions with some parties. As per modus operandi explained, he stated that he provides Page 4 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 accommodation entry in lieu of commission without any corresponding buying/selling of stock and are entered in the Tally Accounts. Since Shri Bijal Ashok Shah, Prop. M/s. Swastik Corporation has admitted that he is engaged in the business of giving bogus entry. Thus the transactions made by M/s. Amar Jewellers Limited with M/s. Swastik Corporation amounting to Rs.29,94,900/- are bogus in nature. 3. Report of the DDIT (Inv.), Unit-4(2) Mumbai has been perused with reference to the statements of Shri Bijal Ashok Shah, Prop. M/s. Swastik Corporation. After perusal and having verified, the finding of the DDIT (Inv.), Unit-4(2), Mumbain is found to be in order that M/s. Swastik Corporation is a paper entity, which is handled by Shri Bijal Ashok Shah engaged in the business of giving bogus accommodation entry in lieu of certain margin of commission. 4. After perusal of statement of Shri Bijal Ashok Shah, Prop. M/s. Swastik Corporation and the DDIT (inv.), Unit-4(2), Mumbai, it is confirmed that the assessee company M/s. Amar Jewellers Ltd. has received bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.29,94,900/- during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y.2013-14 from M/s. Swastik Corporation which is run and controlled by Shri Bijal Ashok Shah a commission agent based in Mumbai. This bill is nothing but the assessee’s bogus purchase and attempt to reduce its tax liability through the said tainted concerns. 5. In view of above facts and discussion made hereinabove, the undersigned has reason to believe and satisfied that the transactions made to the assessee company M/s. Amar Jewellers Ltd. with M/s. Swastik Corporation amounting to Rs.29,94,900/- are bogus in nature. By claiming the bogus purchase expenses, the assessee thereby reduced its profit and resultant tax liability. 6. In view of above facts/material available on Page 5 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 records and after analyzing the same, I have reason to believe and am satisfied that income of the assessee to the extent of Rs.29,94,900/- has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2013-14 within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act. 7. In this case, return of income was filed for the year under consideration and assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act was made on 28.03.2016. Since 4 years from the end of the relevant year has expired in this case, the requirements to initiate proceeding u/s.147 of the Act are reason to believe that income for the year under consideration has escaped assessment because of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the assessment year under consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment for the year consideration have been recorded above (refer paragraphs 1 to 6). I have carefully considered the assessment records containing the submissions made by the assessee in response to various notices issued during the assessment proceedings and have noted that the assessee has not fully and truly disclosed the following material facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration. It is evident from the above facts that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s.147 of the Act. It is true that the assessee has filed a copy of annual report and audited P&L account and balance sheet along with return of income where various information/material were disclosed. However, the requisite full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment has not been made as noted above. It is pertinent to mention here that even though the the assessee has produced audited Page 6 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 P&L account and balance sheet as mentioned above, the requisite material facts as noted above in the reasons for reopening was not as such disclosed and could not be discovered by the AO, accordingly attracting provisions of Explanation-1 of section 147 of the Act. It is evident from the above discussion that in this case, the issues under consideration were never examined by the AO during the course of regular assessment/reassessment. This fact is corroborated from the contents of notice issued by the AO u/s.143(2), 153A proceedings. It is important to highlight here that material facts relevant for the assessment on the issue(s) under consideration were not filed during the course of assessment proceeding and the same may be embedded in annual report, audited P&L A/c, balance sheet and books of account in such a manner that it would require due diligence by the AO to extract these information. For above stated reasons, it is not a case of change of opinion by the AO.” 5. To the aforesaid, the writ applicant filed its objections as under; “6. In your letter dated 07.05.2019, your honour has observed that Shri Bijal Ashok Shah, Prop. Of M/s. Swastik Corporation in the statement recorded in the course of survey stated that he has done cash transactions with some parties. The statement of Shri Bijal Ashok Shah cannot be ground to treat the transactions of assessee with M/s. Swastik Corporation are bogus as Shri Bijal Ashok Shah didn’t say that he has given the bogus bills to the assessee. 7. The above submission made at para no.6 concerning the statement of Shri Bijal Ashok Shah is made without receipt of the actual statement recorded by the revenue. So the statement may Page 7 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 please be supplied as requested earlier. 8. From the above discussions, it is clear that assessee has made true and full disclosure for the purpose of the assessment. As per the proviso to Sec. 147, notice u/s.148 cannot be issued after expiry of 4 years, if assessee make true and full disclosure of material facts necessary for his assessment. In this case, the notice was issued on 28.03.2019 which should have been issued by 31.03.2018, so issue of the notice is time barred. The Explanation 3 of Sec. 147 has no application, where provision of Sec. 147 is applicable. When main proviso of Sec.147 is not applicable by virtue of provision to Sec. 147, there cannot be application of Explanation of the said section. 9. In the reasons recorded, the assessing officer has not indicated the manner in which assessee failed to disclose truly and fully material facts necessary to assessment. 10. In your letter dated 07.05.2019, you hounour has observed that it is true that the assessee has filed a copy of annual report and audited P&L account and balance sheet along with return of income where various information/material were disclosed. However, the requisite full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment has not been made. The statement made by Shri Bijal Ashok Shah cannot be the ground for treating assessee not disclosing fully and truly the material facts necessary for assessment particularly when the statement is not supported by any evidence and cross examination was not provided to the assessee. Even the statement of Shri Bijal Ashok Shah was never provided to the assessee. Further, it is to be noted that in the reasons recorded, it was stated that Bijal Ashok Shah has done cash transactions with some parties. He has never stated that he has issued the bogus bills to the assessee. It is to be noted that no notice u/s.133(6) was issued Page 8 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 for making inquiry before issuing notice u/s.148. 11. On merits, it is submitted that during the year under consideration, assessee has made both purchases and sales with M/s. Swastik Corporation which are supported by bills and payments and receipts through banking channels. The ledger account of M/s. Swastik Corporation as appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee duly confirmed by the party is enclosed herewith.” 6. The objections lodged by the writ applicant came to be disposed of by the Assessing Officer vide its order dated 13.09.2019. The order reads thus; “3.2 So far as, first objection is concerned, the course of action starting from dissemination of information upto supply of reasons related to proceedings of reopen of assessment is narrated hereunder for your ready reference:- (i) This office is in possession of information related to transaction with Swastik Corporation during F.Y.2012-13, which was disseminated through letter No.DDIT(Inv.) Unit-4(2)NM/Information/2017-18 dated 17.10.2017 by the ADIT (Inv.), Unit 4(2), Mumbai. (ii) Recorded the reasons for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act for obtaining approval of the Pr. CIT-1, Surat on 20.03.2019. (iii) Recorded satisfaction of Addl. CIT, Range 1(1), Surat on 22.03.2019. (iv) Recorded satisfaction of Pr. CIT, Surat 1 on 25.03.2019 and conveyed his approval through letter No.SRT/Pr.CIT-1/HQ/Reopening/Range-1(1) 315-327/2018-19 dated 25.03.2019, a copy thereof Page 9 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 marked to this office for necessary action. (v) Issued notice under section 148 on 28.03.2019 through ITBA module. (vi) Reasons for reopening were provided to the assessee by letter dated 07.05.2019 through ITBA module. 3.3 From the above narrated facts, it is clear that the issue of notice under section 148 and subsequent supply of the reasons so recorded to you, are after carefully following procedures prescribed by the law and also keeping the material facts available on record, which may please be noted. Hence, looking to the facts of the case and way in which the procedures were followed, your claim does not hold any weightage, therefore, the same is rejected summarily. 4. The second objection of the assessee regarding supply of information and report of Investigation Wing,. The report being confidential and also contains data pertains to other beneficiary party could not be shared in toto, but the relevant portion of the report which pertains to the assessee M/s. Amar Jewellers Limited is being already conveyed to you in the reasons provided. 5. The third and fourth objection issues, it is worthwhile to mention here that Shri Bijal Ashok Shah, Prop. Of Swastik Corporation was recorded on oath. In the statement, he admitted that he has done cash transactions with some parties including your company. The modus operandi is clearly explained in paragraph no.2 to 6 of the reason recorded, which was already supplied to you, which mentions that Shri Bijal Ashok Shah, Prop. M/s. Swastik Corporation has admitted that he is engaged in the business of giving bogus entry/accommodation entry only in lieu of margin of commission without any corresponding buying/selling of stock. In view of the above, these Page 10 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 objections are also dismissed accordingly. 6. The fifth contention that the assessee has made both purchases and sales with M/s. Swastik Corporation which are supported by bills and payments and receipts through banking channels stands apart the issue involved of re-assessment in the case for the year under consideration. The statement and subsequent investigation revealed that M/s. Swastik Corporation is a paper entity and Shri Bijal Ashok Shah, Prop. M/s. Swastik Corporation has admitted that he is engaged in the business of giving bogus entry/accommodation entry only in lieu of margin of commission without any corresponding buying/selling of stock,. In view of the above the contentions and ledger account furnished has no relevance on the issue discussed herein, hence the same is rejected.” 7. The principal argument of Mr. Hemani on behalf of the assessee is that the reopening is beyond a period of four years and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose its income. Mr. Hemani would submit that the reopening is based on change of opinion. He would submit that the statement of Shri Bijal Ashok Shah which is sought to be relied upon could be said to be of a tainted person and would not constitute tangible material so as to arrive at the conclusion that the income in the hands of the assessee has escaped assessment. Mr. Hemani would submit that the reopening is nothing but a roving or a fishing inquiry. 8. Per contra, Ms. Raval, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue would submit that the Page 11 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 reopening is based on tangible information provided by the External Agencies. Such information was not available with the authorities at the time of original proceedings based on survey proceedings under Section 133A of the Act. Ms. Raval would submit that the Assessing Officer may be permitted to complete the reassessment proceedings and this Court may not interfere at this stage. ANALYSIS 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the Assessing Officer committed any error in issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act for the reopening of the assessment. 10. Section 147 of the Act authorizes the re-opening of any assessment of a previous year. Section 148, which contains the conditions for re-opening assessments, including the limitation period within which notices can be issued, by its proviso, enacts that: “Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice.” Page 12 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 11. Almost six decades back, the Supreme Court, in its decision in the case of Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 1961 (2) SCR 241 had underscored the obligation of every assessee to make a true and full disclosure and said that: “There can be no doubt that the duty of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assesses.” 12. The Supreme Court further held that once the duty is discharged, it is upto the assessing officer to inquire further and draw the necessary inferences while completing the assessment. 13. As to what can be the valid grounds for re-opening an assessment has been the subject matter of several decisions of the supreme court. In Income Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors. vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, 1976 (3) SCR 956, the Supreme Court held that the “reasons to believe” must be based on objective materials, and on a reasonable view. The court held as follows: “The grounds or reasons which lead to the formation of the belief contemplated by Section 147(a) of the Act must have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income of the assessee from assessment because of his failure or omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Once there exist reasonable grounds for the Income-tax Officer to form the above belief, that would be sufficient to clothe him with jurisdiction to issue notice. Whether Page 13 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 the grounds are adequate or not is not a matter for the Court to investigate. The sufficiency of grounds which induce the income-tax Officer to act is, therefore, not a justiciable issue. It is, of course, open to the assessee to contend that the Income-tax Officer did not hold the belief that there had been such non-disclosure. The existence of the belief can be challenged by the assessee but not the sufficiency of reasons for the belief. The expression \"reason to believe\" does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The reason must be held in good faith. It cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the Court to examine whether the reasons for the formation of the belief have a rational connection with or a relevant bearing on the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Income-tax Officer in starting proceedings in respect of income escaping assessment is open to challenge in a Court of law.” 14. In Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Ors. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors., 1993 Supp (1) SCR 28, after reviewing the previous case law, and concluding that a valid re-opening is one, preceded by specific, reliable and relevant information, and that the sufficiency of such reasons is not subject to judicial review- the only caveat being that the court can examine the record, if such material existed, it was held that the facts disclosed in the return, if found later to be unfounded or false, can always be the basis of a re-opening of assessment: “appears to us to be, to ensure that a party cannot get away by willfully making a false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn around and Page 14 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 say \"you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing\". It would be travesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude.” 15. A three judge Bench, of the Supreme Court, in the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 2010 (1) SCR 768, after considering its previous decisions, re-stated the position of law as follows: “5....where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to re-open is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words \"reason to believe\"..… Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of \"mere change of opinion\", which cannot be per se reason to re-open. 6. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re- assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess. But re- assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of \"change of opinion\" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. 7. One must treat the concept of \"change of opinion\" as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is \"tangible material\" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.” Page 15 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 16. It is therefore, clear that the basis for a valid re- opening of assessment should be the availability of tangible material, which can lead the AO to scrutinize the returns for the previous assessment year in question, to determine, whether a notice under Section 147 is called for. 17. It appears that in the case on hand, the search assessment was finalized under section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 28.03.2016. Thereafter, survey action under section 133A of the Act was conducted by the Investigating Wing, Mumbai on 14.01.2017 in the case of Shri Bijal Ashok Shah, proprietor of M/s. Swastik Corporation. During the course of the survey action, one statement of ijal Ashok Shah was recorded on oath wherein he admitted that he is engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries to the beneficiaries in lieu of commission. Bijal Ashok Shah also disclosed the modus operandi employed by him to provide the entries to the beneficiaries . Bijal Ashok Shah, in his statement, has also named the writ applicant herein as one of the recipients of the accommodation entries. All these facts were not before the Assessing Officer at the time of finalization of the search assessment. It is a settled position of law that the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Assessing Officer fall outside the review powers and remains within the domain of the Assessing Officer at this stage of the proceedings where only a preliminary finding Page 16 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 under section 147/148 has been made. It is necessary to reiterate that we are at the stage of the validity of the notice under section 148/147. The inquiry at this stage is only to see whether there are reasonable grounds for the Income Tax Officer to believe and not whether the omission/failure and the escapement of income is established. It is necessary to keep this distinction in mind. (See Shri Krishna (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (1996) 221 ITR 538/87 Taxman 315). 18. Having regard to the materials on record it cannot be said that there is a total non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. It also cannot be said that his conclusion was merely based on the observations and information received from the Investigation Wing. The Assessing Officer could be said to have applied his mind to the same. The Assessing Officer could not be said to have merely concluded without verifying the facts that it is the case of reopening of the assessment. We do not find merit in the vociferous submission of the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant that the contents of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for the reopening of the assessment is merely an introduction about the investigations conducted by the Investigation Wing, the modus operandi of the entry provided, the summing up of inquiry of the Investigation Wing, the information received from the Investigation Wing etc. We have examined the belief of the Assessing Officer to a Page 17 of 18 C/SCA/17598/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 limited extent to look into whether there was sufficient material available on record for the Assessing Officer to form a reasonable belief and whether there was a live link existing of the material and the income chargeable to tax that escaped assessment. The case on hand is not one where it could be argued that the Assessing Officer, on absolutely vague or unspecific information, initiated the proceedings of reassessment without taking the pains to form his own belief in respect of such materials. 19. In the result, this application fails and is hereby rejected. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) Vahid Page 18 of 18 "