PRAVINKUMAR PREMCHANDBHAI PATEL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1)

SCA/3462/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Pravinkumar Premchandbhai Patel, who challenged the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, proposing to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. The petitioner argued that the notice was based on vague and incorrect information and was issued without proper jurisdiction. The Income Tax Officer had reasoned that the petitioner had entered into a bogus subcontract with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd, which was not reflected in the return of income for the relevant assessment year. The court found that the Assessing Officer had not adequately addressed the objections raised by the petitioner and had not provided sufficient reasons for the reopening of the assessment. Consequently, the court remanded the matter for a detailed examination of the objections.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747170 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Hindustan Lever Limited v/s R. B. Wadkar, Ankita A. Choksey v/s ITO, Sea Glimpses Investments Private Limited v/s DCIT, Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Versus Union of India, ITO Vs. Purushottam Das Bengur and Another, Raymond wollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO, Hemjay Construction Co. Pvt Ltd - through Deenaben Yogeshbhai Shah Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bawabhai Singh Vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KARAN SANGANI
• Assessee Lawyers: UMAID SINGH BHATI
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2013-2014; Escaped income; Income tax reassessment; Bogus Subcontract
• Section: 147; 148; 143(2); 151

Judgement Text

"C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3462 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA ========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ========================================================== PRAVINKUMAR PREMCHANDBHAI PATEL Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1) ========================================================== Appearance: UMAIDSINGH BHATI(7973) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR KARAN SANGANI, FOR M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 29/08/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) Page 1 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Umaidsingh Bhati for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Karan Sangani for M.R. Bhatt & Co. for the respondents. 2.Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3.Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Karan Sangani for M.R. Bhatt & Co. waives service of notice of rule for the respondents. 4.The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”) Page 2 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 proposing to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 as well as order dated 25.01.2022 disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner against the reopening of the assessment. 5.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an individual and derives income from salary from his family concern M/s Patel D.J. Tobacco Products Private Limited in the capacity of the Director of the company since 2006. The petitioner also earns interest income from loans and advances, investments and deposits with the Banks. It is the case of the petitioner that besides the business related to 'Bidi' making, the petitioner has never entered into any contract or sub-contract to do any other kind of work especially civil or construction related works. Page 3 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 5.1) The petitioner had electronically filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 on 19.07.2013 declaring total income of Rs.15,80,639/-. 5.2) It is the case of the petitioner that as the petitioner had not received the notice under section 143(2) for the Assessment Year 2013-14 within the stipulated time under the Act, the assessment proceedings for the above assessment year came to an end and therefore, no proceedings were pending against him. 5.3) The petitioner thereafter received a notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2021 issued by the respondent No.1, stating that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income for Assessment Year 2013-2014 had escaped assessment. Page 4 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 5.4) In response to the above notice under section 148, the petitioner has again uploaded a return of income on 16.04.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 15,80,639/-. As the copy of reasons recorded was not provided to the petitioner, he had requested the respondent to provide the same vide his letter dated 16.09.2021, which was dispatched through RPAD on 21.09.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, the respondent No. 1 had uploaded a notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 22.09.2021 along with which an Annexure was annexed containing extracts of reasons, where even the date of recording of reasons has not been mentioned. 5.5) The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act read Page 5 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 as under : “1. Brief details of the assessee The assessee PRAVINBHAI PREMCHANDBHAI PATEL, having PAN: AAYPP7277Q and the assessee had filed return of income on 19-07-2013 1. Brief detalls of Information collected received by the AO: In this case, Information has been received from the Insight Portal of ITBA in the case of PRAVINBHAI PREMCHANDBHAI PATEL for AY 2013-14 As per information the assessee has entered into bogus sub contract with Sadbhav Engineer of Rs 21,00,00,000/- during the F.Y. 2013- 14 relevant to A. Y. 2014-15. 1. Analysis of information collected/received: On verification of details received, it is noticed that assessee has entered into bogus sub contract with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd of Rs. 21,00,00,000/- during the F.Y. 2013- 14 relevant to A.Y. 2014-15. The genuineness of the above transaction is not proved as it does not commensurate with the ROI filed for the year under consideration. The assessee had not shown the above transactions, while filing the ROI of A.Y 2013-14. Therefore income of Rs. 21,00,00,000/- was not offered Page 6 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 to tax by the assessee and the same has escaped from assessment for A.Y. 2013-14. 1. Findings of the AO: Based on the above information, this case is a fit case for re-opening u/ s 147 of the act. On verification of above details received in INSIGHT Portal of the ITBA is ascertained that as the assessee had filed the return of AY 2013-14 on 19-07-2013. In view of the above facts the creditworthiness, in regard to this transaction made by the assessee is not proved. Therefore income of Rs. 21,00,00,000/- was not offered to tax by the assessee and the same has escaped from assessment for AY 2013- 14. 1. Basis of forming reasons to believe and details of escapement of income: On verification of such information, I have reason to believe that the income of Rs. 21,00,00,000/- has escaped from assessment for A.Y. 2013-14 1. Applicability of the provisions of section 147/151 to the facts of the case: After analyzing the above information received in INSIGHT Portal of the ITBA, the data made available in the ITS details of the assessee prima facle, I have reason Page 7 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 to conclude that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all the particulars of his income. It is evident from the above facts that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening us.147 of the Act. In this case, return of Income has been filed for the year under consideration, however, no assessment was made 143(3) of the Act and the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s.147 is reason to believe which has been recorded at above paragraphs. In view of the above, the provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In this case more than four years have been lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 has been obtained separately from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of Sec. 151 of the Act.” 5.6) The petitioner had thereafter uploaded the objections to reasons recorded Page 8 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 vide letter dated 12.10.2021. It is the case of petitioner that respondent No.2 finally uploaded complete reasons recorded on 22.12.2021 without the date of recording such reasons. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.2 has uploaded the order disposing of the objections without adverting to the objections raised by the petitioner along with a complete set of reasons with sanction under section 151 of the Act on 25.01.2022, however, thereafter without giving any time to the petitioner to deal with such reasons, respondent no.2 has immediately issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 31.01.2022 calling for details in order to complete the assessment proceedings. 5.7) The petitioner has therefore, approached this Court by filing the present petition challenging the impugned action of Page 9 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 the respondents. 6.Learned advocate Mr. Umaidsingh Bhati for the petitioner submitted that the notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2021 is an invalid notice because the reasons recorded by the respondent on 30.03.2021 were based on vague, inchoate and incorrect information, and that too at the direction of the Superior Authority [DGIT (System)]. Therefore, the impugned Notice is wholly bad in law, illegal, and without jurisdiction. 6.1) It was submitted that the impugned notice under section 148 of Act dated 30.03.2021 and the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 disposing of the objections are illegal, bad-in-law and without jurisdiction because conditions precedent for reopening the assessment under provisions of sections 147 and 151 of the Act are not satisfied Page 10 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 inasmuch as section 147 of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax which he has reason to believe has escaped assessment and the reason to believe ought to be of Assessing Officer himself, and he should not act on the directions of others or his superiors for reopening an assessment. It was submitted that the existence of a reason to believe is an essential condition for exercising the power to issue notice under section 148 of the Act and reopen an assessment. It was submitted that in the present case the Assessing Officer had the information that the assessee has entered into bogus sub- contract with Sadbhav Engineering Limited of Rs.21,00,00,000/- during the Financial year 2013-2014 relevant to Assessment Year 2014- 2015. The Assessing Officer therefore, analyzed the above information vis-a-vis return of income and came to the conclusion Page 11 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 that on verification of details received, it is noticed that assessee has entered into bogus sub-contract with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. of Rs. 21,00,00,000/- during the Financial Year 2013-2014 relevant to Assessment Year 2014-2015 and the genuineness of the above transaction is not proved as it does not commensurate with the ROI filed for the year under consideration. It was further found that the assessee had not shown the above transactions while filing the ROI of Assessment Year 2013-2014 and therefore income of Rs. 21,00,00,000/- was not offered to tax by the assessee and the same has escaped from assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. 6.2) It was submitted that from above recording of reasons it is clear that the alleged information pertaining to the entering into sub-contract by the petitioner Page 12 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 with Sadbhav Engineering Limited was for the Financial Year 2013-2014 relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015 and therefore, the question does not arise to offer the income derived, if any, from the alleged subcontract in the return for the Assessment Year 2013- 2014. Further, as the information pertains to the Assessment Year 2014-2015, the reopening of assessment for the Assessment Year 2013- 2014 is invalid on the basis of the above information. 6.3) It was submitted that the reasons recorded by the respondent has neither mentioned any investigation or enquiry in connection with the allegation of bogus subcontract by the petitioner with Sadbhav Engineering Limited by the Investigation Wing, nor has any such report been made part of the above reasons and no proper details were set out in the reasons recorded. It was Page 13 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 therefore, submitted that there was neither credible information nor tangible material before the respondent at the time of recording of reasons, while reasons ought to be based on some tangible material which is a mandatory requirement under the provisions of section 147 of the Act. It was submitted that the reasons should be self-explanatory or self-evident and they must speak for themselves because they are subject to judicial scrutiny and the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer and no substitution or deletion is permissible. 6.4) It was further submitted that the reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness and the reasons recorded should be self-explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing as well as the reasons Page 14 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 provide link between evidence and conclusion. It was submitted that the reasons recorded must be based on evidence and in the event, the reasons recorded are challenged, the Assessing Officer must be able to justify the same based on material available on record. It was submitted that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer cannot be supplemented by filing affidavit or by making oral submission, otherwise, the reasons which are lacking in material particulars would get supplemented, by the time the matter reaches to the Court, on the strength of affidavit or oral submissions advanced. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision in case of Hindustan Lever Limited v/s R. B. Wadkar reported in (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom)]. It was submitted that the crucial link between information available to the respondent and formation of belief was absent in the present case, which is Page 15 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 necessary even in case where the return of income has been accepted under section 143(1) of the Act. 6.5) It was submitted that there was a complete lack of application of mind in stating that the petitioner did not declare subcontract transaction in the return of income. It was submitted that the whole contract receipt as such cannot be equal to the net profit or taxable income. Relevant expenses and allowances as provided under the Act has to be deducted from the contract receipts to arrive at taxable income. Thus, it cannot be stated that the whole subcontract amount has escaped assessment. 6.6) It was further submitted that there was failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to provide a copy of the material based on which it is alleged that the Page 16 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 petitioner has entered into a subcontract with Sadbhav Engineering Limited for Rs.21,00,00,000/-. 6.7) It was submitted that the petitioner never entered into any contract or subcontract with Sadbhav Engineering Limited, which deals in big infrastructural projects, while the petitioner has always been confined to area of activities related to manufacturing and trading of 'bidis' and related items. 6.8) It was submitted that had the petitioner entered into a subcontract, he would have shown the related transactions in his books of account and the return of income in order to subserve the motives and objective of both the parties to the sub contract. However, respondent no.2 failed to controvert any of the objections raised by Page 17 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 the petitioner while disposing of the objections. 6.9) It was submitted that the alleged information pertains to Assessment Year 2014- 2015 while assessment for Assessment Year 2013-2014 has been reopened. It was submitted that the petitioner has clearly pointed out that he has been engaged in the line of manufacturing and trading of bidis and that he has never entered into a contract or sub- contract work with Sadbhav Engineering Limited. It was submitted that the respondent doe not provide or discuss an iota of material indicating existence of any contract or sub-contract between Sadbhav Engineering Limited and the petitioner. 6.10) It was submitted that the respondent could not establish that the facts stated in reasons recorded are correct and therefore, Page 18 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 has proceeded on fundamentally wrong facts to come to belief/conclusion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It was therefore, submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 is invalid as held in decisions of Bombay High Court in case of Ankita A. Choksey v/s ITO reported in (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bom) and in case of Sea Glimpses Investments Private Limited v/s DCIT reported in 2021(12) TMI 106- Bombay High Court. 7.On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Karan Sangani for the respondent at the outset submitted that the petition is filed at a pre-mature stage inasmuch as only a notice under section 148 read with section 147 of the Act has been issued and in the event, the petitioner is aggrieved by the reassessment, alternative efficacious remedy is available Page 19 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 by way of an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and thereafter before the Tribunal as per the provisions of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed in the decision in case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal 357 ITR 357 and in case of the Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Versus Union of India (WRIT PETITION NO. 395 OF 2018). 7.1) It was submitted that the assessment was reopened after taking recourse to all administrative and legal procedures and after duly recording the reasons for which the case was reopened and as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act, the notice under section 148 of the Act had duly been issued within the power conferred as per the law and as per the provision of the section 147 of the Act. Hence, it can never be said that notice under section 148 of the Act issued to the assessee is contrary to Page 20 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 law. 7.2) It was submitted that as per the information reflected on Insight Portal, the petitioner has entered into bogus sub contract with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. during the Financial year 2013-2014 relevant to Assessment Year 2014-2015 amounting to Rs. 21,00,00,000/- and investment made by the petitioner has not matched with petitioner’s income profile and also investment is not reflected in petitioner's books of accounts and therefore, the Assessing Officer had the reason to conclude that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all the particulars of his income and income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by an amount of Rs. 21,00,00,000/-. 7.3) It was submitted that as per the information available to the department and Page 21 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 records and subsequent findings arose out of information gathered from the system, the case was reopened as per the law after recording of satisfaction and taking approval of the competent authority, hence it cannot be said that the case was reopened without independent application of mind. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer after analyzing all these facts, has recorded his reason for reopening the case and sent the same to competent authority for approval to issue notice under section 148 of the Act. 7.4) It was submitted that the case was reopened as per the procedure after recording of satisfaction and taking approval of the competent authority, hence it cannot be said that the case was reopened in mechanical manner. It was submitted that the main ingredient required to issue notice under section 148 of the Act is to form reason to Page 22 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 believe. At the stage of issue of notice under section 148, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief as to whether an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It was submitted that the expression “reason to believe” cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. Whether material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at the stage of issue of notice. It only means that the Assessing Officer forms a belief from the examination of facts, from any information the Assessing Officer receives. If the Assessing Officer discovers or finds or satisfies that the taxable income has escaped assessment, it would amount to saying that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that such Page 23 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 income has escaped assessment. It was submitted that the justification of Assessing Officer’s belief is not to be judged from the standards of proof required for coming to a final decision. A belief though justified for the purpose of initiation of the proceedings under section 147 may ultimately stand altered after the hearing and while reaching the final conclusion on the basis of the intervening enquiry. 7.5) Relying upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Bawabhai Singh Vs. DCIT, reported in 253 ITR 83, it was submitted that the Court observed that \"there must be some material which can be regarded as information, on the basis of which the Assessing Officer can have reason to believe that action under section 147 is called for. Information means the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence. It Page 24 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 includes knowledge obtained from investigation study or instruction. The reasons which may weigh with the A.O. may be result of his own investigation and may come from any source that he considers reliable.\" 7.6) It was submitted that this Court in the case of Hemjay Construciton Co. Pvt Ltd - through Deenaben Yogeshbhai Shah Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) - in R/SCA No.19392 of 2018, has held that \"merely because certain materials which is otherwise tangible and enables the Assessing Officer to form a belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, formed part of the original assessment record, per se would not bar the Assessing Officer from reopening the assessment on the basis of such material. The expression \"tangible material\" does not mean the material alien to the original record.” The Court further observed that “it is not Page 25 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 necessary that the Income Tax Officer should hold a quasi judicial inquiry before acting under Section 147. It is enough if he on the information received believes in good faith that the assesee's profits have escaped assessment or have been assessed at a low rate.\" 8.On perusal of the facts of the case as well as considering submissions made by the learned advocates for both the sides, it appears that while disposing the objections filed by the petitioner assessee pursuant to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act for re-opening the Assessment Year 2013- 2014, the Assessing Officer has not given any reason for disposing of the objection. The Assessing Officer has passed the following order on 25.01.2022 while disposing the objections of the petitioner: Page 26 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 “In the instant case, Notice u/s. 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961, was issued on 30/03/2021 after recording the reasons as mandated in section 148(2) of the Act and after obtaining necessary approval u/s 151 or the Act. In response to the Notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of Income on 13/05/2021. Accordingly, notice u/s.143(2) was issued on 22/09/2021 along with brief details and reasons for reopening of the case is enclosed as annexure. Subsequently, the assessee has furnished a written submissions objecting to the reason vide his mail dated 30/12/2021. The submission of the assessee has been duly examined. 1. I have requested you to provide me a complete set of \"Reasons Recorded\" along with copy of sanction of competent authority u/s.151 of the Income-tax, 1961 vide my letter dated 16.09.2021, however, despite the above specific request, you have provided me only \"Annexure\" to the notice u/s.143(3) dated 22.09.2021 only. In this regard a copy of reasons recorded along with copy of sanction of competent authority u/s.151 of the income-tax Act, 1961 is attached herewith as attachment. 1. Objections to Reasons Recorded: In this regard, the assessee's contention is not acceptable. As the Assessing officer will form a belief that income has escaped assessment which Page 27 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 is enough for issue of notice u/s.148. The following judgement of the hon'ble supreme Court have been relied upon by the AO and following facts are also mentioned by the AO in respect of each of the judgments. 1. ITO Vs. Purushottam Das Bengur and Another, 224 ITR 362 (SC)- At the time of Initiation of the proceedings u/s.147, the Assessing Officer should have prima facts material relevant to the assessee. 1. Raymond wollen Mills Ltd. vs.ITO (1999) 36 ITR 34 (SC): the sufficiency of correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the reopening stage. While considering whether commencement of reassessment proceeding was valid. The court had only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency of correctness of the materials is not a thing to be considered at that stage. At the same time once the assessment is reopened you are at liberty to furnish full particulars of your case and prove the genuineness of the transactions entered during the F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to the assessment 2014-15 Kindly cooperate and furnish the details, so that the assessment will be finalized on merits. Accordingly, the objection filed by the assessee is disposed of as above.” Page 28 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 9.In view of above facts, when the Assessing Officer has not provided any reason for rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners, it would be in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer to pass a detailed order giving reasons for disposing of the objections filed by the assessee. 10. In view of the above, without entering into the merits of the matter, the petition is disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer to pass a detailed order giving reasons for disposing the objections filed by the assessee objecting to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act for the Assessment year 2013-2014 after considering the objections and contentions raised by the assessee in detail. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt Page 29 of 30 C/SCA/3462/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 of copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. The impugned order dated 25.01.2022 is quashed and set aside. 12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR Page 30 of 30 "