MGF Growth Research and Invesmart Limited V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(4) & 1

SCA/16235/2014

AI Insights

The case revolves around MGF Growth Research and Invesmart Limited, a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC), which challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reassessment was based on allegations that the company had received accommodation entries in lieu of cash, which constituted undisclosed income. The petitioner argued that the notices were issued without proper jurisdiction and that the reassessment was based on a borrowed belief rather than the Assessing Officer's own conviction. The Revenue contended that the reassessment was justified due to the escape of income from assessment, supported by tangible material from the Investigating Wing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 819963 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Khand Udyog Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hindustan Inks and Resins Ltd. vs. DCIT, The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pragati Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vodafone Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, ACIT & Anr. vs. Hotel Blue Moon, CITA vs. Mohd. Juned Dadani, Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. vs. ITO, M/s. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MAUNA BHATT
• Assessee Lawyers: R K PATEL
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Bogus Share capital; Income Tax; Notice under section 148; Reassessment
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 143(2); 143(1)

Judgement Text

"C/SCA/16235/2014 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16235 of 2014 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/­ and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA Sd/­ ============================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 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 ============================================= MGF GROWTH RESEARCH AND INVESMART LIMITED....Petitioner(s) Versus INCOME­TAX OFFICER, WARD­4(4) & 1....Respondent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR RK PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ­ 2 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ­ 2 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA Date : 08/04/2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assessee has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 07.06.2013 (Annexure­D) issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) along with the preliminary order dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure­O) and all subsequent notices for Page 1 of 15 C/SCA/16235/2014 JUDGMENT providing and completing reassessment proceedings. [2.0] Facts leading to the present Special Civil Application and so pleaded in the present petition in nut­shell are as under: [2.1] That the petitioner assessee company is a Non Banking Finance Company (hereinafter referred to as “NBFC”). That the petitioner applied for NBFC registration in the year 2008. The Reserve Bank of India rejected the application in duplicate and asked the petitioner to change the name of the company as it does not reflect NBFC status. That thereafter the petitioner company changed its name to MFF Growth Research and Invesmart Ltd. on 10.12.2008. That thereafter a fresh application for NBFC registration was made on 29.12.2008. According to the petitioner the fund of the company was required to be blocked in the form of Fixed Deposit with bankers till the completion of NBFC registration procedure. According to the petitioner, after extensive inquiry by the Reserve Bank of India with respect to the Directors and other shareholders of the company, on 25.06.2009, NBFC registration certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Reserve Bank of India. [2.2] That the petitioner assessee filed the return of income of AY 2009­ 2010. According to the petitioner, the said return was processed and an order under section 143(1) of the Act was passed. That thereafter the petitioner has been served with the notice under section 148 of the Act and reopened the assessment for year 2009­10 by impugned notice dated 07.06.2013 the petitioner assessee was called upon to file a revised return alleging inter alia that the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2009­ 10 has escaped the assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. That in pursuance to the said notice, the petitioner company replied vide letter dated 11.07.2013 and requested to consider the original Page 2 of 15 C/SCA/16235/2014 JUDGMENT return of income filed on 22.09.2009 as the return of income filed in compliance of the notice under section 148 of the Act and also requested to provide the copy of the reasons recorded. That thereafter the notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 15.05.2014 was issued for scrutiny and served upon the petitioner company. It appears that in pursuance to the aforesaid notice dated 15.05.2014, the petitioner replied vide letter dated 22.05.2014 and again asked for reasons recorded. That thereafter the petitioner company was provided with reasons recorded vide letter dated 26.05.2014. That on receipt of the copy of the reasons recorded, the petitioner company filed its objections against the reasons recorded vide its letter dated 13.06.2014 and requested to first dispose of the reasons recorded relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors. reported in (2003)259 ITR 19 (SC). [2.3] It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that thereafter the Assessing Officer without disposing of the objections, issued a show­ cause notice dated 10.06.2014 on merits and asked the petitioner company to show­cause as to why the total amount of Rs.69,02,700/­ should not be added to the total income treating it as undisclosed income. That against the said notice dated 10.06.2014, the petitioner company replied vide its letter dated 18.06.2014 and requested the Assessing Officer firstly to dispose of the objections raised in the letter dated 13.06.2014. That thereafter the respondent No.1 – Assessing Officer issued final notice on 02.09.2014 giving last opportunity to the petitioner company to represent its case on or before 12.09.2014. That the petitioner company appeared before the respondent No.1 on 12.09.2014 and sought for adjournment. That the petitioner company thereafter by letter dated 15.09.2014 again filed objections with a request to dispose of the objections along with the objections earlier Page 3 of 15 C/SCA/16235/2014 JUDGMENT raised in the letter dated 13.06.2014. That vide letter dated 29.09.2014 which was received by the petitioner on 07.10.2014, the respondent rejected the objections filed by the petitioner and issued the notice on 29.09.2014 to the petitioner assessee company under section 142(1) of the Act. That thereafter the petitioner company vide letter dated 09.10.2014 sought an adjournment. That thereafter the petitioner company vide letter dated 13.10.2014 requested the respondents to furnish the copy of the order dated 20.06.2014 disposing of the objections of the petitioner company mentioned in the letter dated 13.06.2014, as according to the petitioner the said communication was never done by the Assessing Officer. That thereafter vide letter dated 15.10.2014, the respondent furnished the copy of the order dated 20.06.2014. That thereafter vide letter dated 29.10.2014, the petitioner communicated to the respondent that the notice under section 142(1) of the Act is not valid in absence of valid jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the Act. At that stage the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act and challenging the initiation of the reassessment proceedings. [3.0] Shri R.K. Patel, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Manish Bhatt, learned Counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent – revenue. Shri R.K. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – assessee has vehemently submitted that the impugned notices and the initiation of the reassessment proceedings are absolutely illegal and wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Statute more particularly section 147 read with section 148 of the Act. [3.1] It is submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf Page 4 of 15 C/SCA/16235/2014 JUDGMENT of the petitioner – assessee that infact the initial notice dated 07.06.2013 under section 148 of the Act which was received on 14.06.2013 was with old name and wrong PAN number. It is submitted that immediately on 11.07.2013, the petitioner replied to the notice under section 148 of the Act and the petitioner asked for the reasons recorded. It is submitted that the subsequent notice dated 15.05.2014 under section 143(2) of the Act and the action of the Assessing Officer is against the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (Supra) as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 106 DTR 83. [3.2] It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner assessee that even the Assessing Officer has disposed of the objections mechanically without applying the mind. It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee that the petitioner is a NBFC registered with Reserved Bank of India wherein the complete details of the shareholders was verified by the Reserve Bank of India while granting NBFC registration by the RBI. It is submitted that the entire share capital has been received through account payee cheques and is assessed to income tax. It is submitted that therefore there is no reason for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment. It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner assessee that even the reassessment proceedings are initiated on the borrowed belief and the information from the investigating wing and as such it is not a belief of the Assessing Officer. It is submitted that therefore the conditions as provided under section 147 of the Act in reopening the assessment are not satisfied. It is submitted that the said objection for the reassessment has not been replied by the Assessing Officer in parawise affidavit in reply. In support of his above submissions, he has Page 5 of 15 C/SCA/16235/2014 JUDGMENT relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. vs. ITO [329 ITR 119 (Delhi)]. [3.3] It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner assessee that even there is no escapement of chargeable income and therefore also, the notice under section 147 / 148 of the Act is bad in law as the petitioner is a company. In support of his above submissions, he has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and Bombay High Court. 1. CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd. 251 ITR 263 (SC) 3. Hindustan Inks and Resins Ltd. vs. DCIT 60 DTR 18 (Guj.) 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pragati Co.Op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj.) 5. Vodafone Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2014) 368 ITR 1 (Bombay) It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner assessee that capital receipt cannot be taxed as income and therefore, the amendment in section 68 through proviso is made prospective. It is submitted that even in the Budget Memorandum and Explanatory Note it is clarified. It is submitted that therefore the amount of the share capital is not an income for the assessment year under consideration. [3.4] It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has not supplied the copy of the statement or allied cross­examination of the persons whose Page 6 of 15 C/SCA/16235/2014 JUDGMENT statements have been relied upon though specifically asked in para 4 in the objection letter dated 13.06.2014. It is submitted that therefore, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction for reopening as per the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Devichand Kothari (HUF) vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.9(3), Bangalore [(2015)55 Taxmann.com 467 (Karnataka)]. It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as such there was no tangible material available with the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment. Making above submissions and relying upon following decisions, Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – assessee has requested to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the impugned action of the respondent in reopening the assessment for AY 2009­2010. 1. GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. 259 ITR 19 (SC) 2. Hindustan Inks and Resins Ltd. vs. DCIT 60 DTR 18 (Guj.) 3. CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd. 251 ITR 263 (SC) 4. CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC) 5. Sukhini Modi 107 DTR 317 (Guj.) 6. ACIT & Anr. vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 7. CITA vs. Mohd. Juned Dadani 355 ITR 172 (Guj.) 8. The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pragati Co.Op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj.) Page 7 of 15 C/SCA/16235/2014 JUDGMENT 9. Sahakari Khand Udyog Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 106 DTR 83. 10. Sarthak Securities Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 329 ITR 110 (Del.) [4.0] Present petition is vehemently opposed by Shri Manish Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner filed its return of income on 22.09.2009 for the AY 2009­10 which was duly processed under section 143(1) of the Act. It is submitted that no scrutiny assessment was made in the case of the petitioner for AY 2009­10. It is submitted that an information was thereafter received from DIT (Inv.)­II, New Delhi which indicates that Shri Surendra Kumar Jain and his brother Shri Virendra Jain are indulging in providing accommodation entries to many persons. It is submitted that during the course of such investigation, it was found that the petitioner MGF Growth Research and Invesmart Ltd. is one of the said beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by the aforesaid Shri Surendra Kumar Jain and his brother Shri Virendra Jain. It is submitted that on verification of return of income, it was seen that the petitioner had obtained accommodation entries from various paper companies of S.K. Jain Group in lieu of cash during the AY 2008­09 for total amount of Rs.69,02,700/­. It is submitted that the said bogus share capital / premium / loan has clearly escaped taxation in the assessment year 2009­10 and therefore, the said amount requires to be taxed in the hand of the assessee. It is submitted that the said obtained accommodation entries resulted in escapement of income for the year under consideration. It is submitted that therefore and accordingly, after recording the reason for reopening the assessment, notice under section Page 8 of 15 C/SCA/16235/2014 JUDGMENT 148 of the Act has been issued on 07.06.2013, which was within the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It is submitted that for the said issue no opinion was formed in the original assessment as it was 143(1) assessment. It is further submitted that there is non­issue of notice dated 02.09.2014 for the reason that the petitioner’s objection was found to be disposed of by the then Assessing Officer and petitioner has not filed further application. It is submitted that this was done as there was a change of incumbent in the office of respondent No.1. [4.1] It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent that the objection of the petitioner for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act was disposed on 20.06.2014 by then incumbent in the office, the fact of which was clearly mentioned in the order dated 29.10.2014. It is further submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue that in the present case assessment has been reopened under section 147 of the Act after recording the reasons for the same after considering and on the basis of the information received from the Investigating Wing, New Delhi. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 has followed all the procedure contained in section 147 of the Act and after recording the reason for reopening the assessment has received notice under section 148 of the Act. [4.2] It is further submitted that in the present case notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued after having a reasonable belief, on the basis of the information received that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and therefore, the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued within the four corners of section 147 of the Act. It is further submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue that as can be seen from the reasons recorded, Page 9 of 15 C/SCA/16235/2014 JUDGMENT the information was received from the Investigating Wing about the petitioner assessee being beneficiary of accommodation entries from various paper companies of S.K. Jain Group in lieu of cash in the form of bogus share capital/premium/loan. It is submitted that this being tangible material which was not debated during the original summary assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has rightly formed reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. [4.3] It is vehemently submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue that the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports (Supra), Stella Industries Ltd. (Supra) and even Hotel Blue Moon (Supra) shall not be applicable to the facts of the present case at this stage. It is submitted that all the defences which may be available to the petitioner assessee are required to be considered during the reassessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and this Court at this stage is not required to consider the merits and/or the defence in detail which may be available to the petitioner assessee. It is further submitted that even with regard to the application from bogus shareholders, identity of the said shareholder will have to be established which exercise can be undertaken only through reassessment proceedings. It is submitted that even the applicability of the relied upon judgments will have to be considered during the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, it is submitted that it is not justified on the part of the petitioner to request this Court to undertake said exercise at this stage. It is further submitted that it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the sufficiency of the reasons. Making above submissions and relying upon following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is requested to dismiss the present petition and allow the Assessing Officer to proceed further with the reassessment proceedings. Page 10 of 15 C/SCA/16235/2014 JUDGMENT 1. ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC) 2. M/s. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO 203 ITR 456 (SC) 3. 221 ITR 531 (SC) 4. 271 ITR 597 (SC) [5.0] Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. We have also gone through the original file reopening the assessment for AY 2009­10. At the outset it is required to be noted that by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act issued to reopen the assessment for the year 2009­10. It is required to be noted that after the notice under section 148 of the Act at the request of the petitioner assessee, the petitioner has been served with the reasons recorded and thereafter even the objections raised by the petitioner has been disposed of by passing the speaking order. [5.1] The reasons recorded for issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act for the AY 2009­10 are reproduced as under: “1. The Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv) Unit VI(2), New Delhi vide letter No.DDIT (Inv)/U.VI(2) / information sharing / 2012­ 13 dated 14.3.2013 has informed that a search / survey action u/s. 132/133A of the Act was conducted at the residential and business premises of Shri Surendra Kumar Jain and his brother Virendra Jain. During the course of post search investigation, it has been evidently established that Shri S.K. Jain and his brother Shri Virendra Jain are in the business of providing Page 11 of 15 C/SCA/16235/2014 JUDGMENT accommodation entries to various beneficiary companies / entities / persons through cheques through a number of paper and dummy companies in lieu of cash. These dummy companies were totally managed and controlled by Shri Surendra Kumar Jain and his brother Shri Virendra Jain. 2. During the course of search action, vast number of incriminating documents were found and seized. These documents include date wise and written cheque books and cash books maintained by Sh. S.K. Jain and his brother over a long period of time. In these cheque books and cash books details of cheque provided to beneficiary companies / entities / persons and receipt of cash by Shri S.K. Jain from these beneficiary companies / entities / persons were recorded. 3. From the verification of the documents seized, it clearly appears that M/s. MGF Growth Research & Technocrafts Ltd. had obtained accommodation entries from various paper companies of S.K. Jain Group in lieu of cash during the F.Y. 2008­09 for total amount of Rs.69,02,700/­. This bogus share capital / premium / loan has clearly escaped taxation in the Asst. Year 2009­10 therefore, this amount requires to be taxed in the hand of the assessee. In view of the above facts, I have reasons to believe that the income to the tune of Rs.69,02,700/­ chargeable to tax has been under assessed in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2009­10 and is required to be reassessed as there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for Asst. Year 2009­10.” Page 12 of 15 C/SCA/16235/2014 JUDGMENT Thus, from the aforesaid it appears that after the information received from the office of Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation Wing), New Delhi dated 14.03.2013 and thereafter forming a reasonable belief and forming an opinion that income has escaped assessment by recording the reasons on 09.04.2013, the notice under section 148 of the Act which has been issued within the period of 4 years from the date of the relevant assessment year. That the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued on 07.06.2013. Under the circumstances, as such it cannot be said that there was no tangible material available with the Assessing Officer to form an opinion and/or reasonable belief that the income has escaped assessment. Even the contention on behalf of the petitioner that it was not an opinion of the Assessing Officer himself and it was a borrowed opinion has no substance and cannot be accepted. Merely because after the information received from the Investigating Wing, New Delhi and thereafter having formed an opinion and having prima facie satisfied that the income has escaped assessment for the year 2009­10, the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued, it cannot be said that it is a borrowed opinion. While forming an opinion and reasonable belief the information received from Investigating Wing, New Delhi has been considered and which can be said to be a tangible material to form an opinion and reasonable belief. [5.2] Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner that no procedure has been followed as required to be followed as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (Supra), Sahakari Khand Udyog (Supra) is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. After the supply of the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment for the AY 2009­10, the petitioner raised an objection which has been duly disposed of on 20.06.2014 and thereafter further notice under section 143(2) of the Act has been issued. Page 13 of 15 C/SCA/16235/2014 JUDGMENT Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the procedure as required to be followed as per the aforesaid decisions has not been followed at all. [5.3] Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent wants to make a regular scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act, since no original scrutiny assessment is formed under section 143(3) of the Act as no statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued within the statutory time limit and therefore, the entire exercise is illegal and reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (Supra) is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the present case the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued within a period of 4 years from the date of the relevant assessment year. The original assessment was under section 143(1) of the Act and at that stage no detail scrutiny was made. It is also required to be noted that even the information on the basis of which the reopening proceedings have been initiated was subsequent to the assessment under section 143(1) of the Act. The impugned notice has been issued after forming a reasonable belief and opinion that the income has escaped assessment for relevant assessment year 2009­10 within the four corners of section 147 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (Supra), which was with respect to block assessment under section 158 BC shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. [5.4] Even the other submissions which are on merits are not required to be considered by this Court at this stage as ample opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to put forward its case before the Assessing Page 14 of 15 C/SCA/16235/2014 JUDGMENT Officer at the time of reassessment proceedings. At this stage this Court is not required to go into the sufficiency of the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment for the year 2009­10 and/or to consider the defence which may be available to the petitioner on merits. It is required to be noted that even during the reassessment proceedings a detailed inquiry is required to be made with regard to the share application / premium / from bogus shareholders. Identity of the said shareholders will have to be established, which exercise can be undertaken only through the reassessment proceedings. [5.5] Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly when the allegations are that the income has escaped assessment on the ground that the petitioner assessee being beneficiary of accommodation entries from various paper companies of S.K. Jain Group in lieu of cash in the form of bogus share capital / premium / loan, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the notice under Section 148 of the Act at this stage and to restrain the Revenue from proceeding further with the reassessment proceedings where the petitioner will have ample opportunity to put forward its case / defences which may be available to them under the law. [6.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad­interim relief stands vacated forthwith. Sd/­ (M.R. SHAH, J.) Sd/­ (S.H. VORA, J.) Ajay Page 15 of 15 "