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

SCA/4007/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Pravinkumar Premchandbhai Patel, who challenged the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), proposing to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The petitioner argued that the notice was based on vague and incorrect information regarding a bogus subcontract with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd., which he denied. The court found that the Assessing Officer had not provided adequate reasons for rejecting the petitioner's objections and remanded the matter for a detailed examination of the objections.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 759188 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT v/s Manzil Dineshkumar Shah, Precilion Holdings Ltd. v/s DCIT, Hindustan Lever Limited v/s R. B. Wadkar, Ankita A. Choksey v/s ITO, Sea Glimpses Investments Private Limited v/s DCIT, Hemjay Construction Co. Pvt Ltd v/s ITO, Bawabhai Singh Vs. DCIT, ITO Vs. Purushottam Das Bengur and Another, Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO, Chhabil Dass Agarwal, Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Versus Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KARAN SANGHANI
• Assessee Lawyers: UMAID SINGH BHATI
• Keywords: Bogus Subcontract; Income escape; Notice under section 148; Reassessment; Technical glitch
• Section: 147; 148; 143(2); 143(1); 151

Judgement Text

"C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4007 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 SANGHANI 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 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 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 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 proposing to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 as well as orders dated 22.12.2021 and 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 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 5.1) The petitioner had electronically filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 on 04.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.15,10,846/-, which had been processed under section 143(1) on 31.07.2014. Later on, the above return was revised on 30.11.2015 declaring capital gain on the sale of agricultural land which income being exempt from income tax, the returned income remained the same i.e. Rs.15,10,846/-. 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 2014-2015 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 Page 4 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 issued by the respondent No.1 stating that he had reason to believe that income for Assessment Year 2014-2015 had escaped assessment. 5.4) In response to the above notice under section 148, the petitioner had again uploaded the return of income on 13.05.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 15,09,060/-. 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) 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. Page 5 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 5.5) The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act read as under : “1. Brief details of the assessee’s case: the assessee has filed return of Income for the A.Y. 2014-15 declaring total Income of Rs. 15,10,846/- 2. Brief details of Information collected/ received by the AO: In this case, information was reflected on Insight Portal. As per information uploaded, it is stated that the The assessee has entered into bogus sub contract with Sadbhav Enginnering Ltd. for AY 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 21,00,00,000/-. It is noticed that the investment made by assessee has not matched with assessee income profile and also noted that said investment has not reflected in assessee's books of accounts. Further, verifications required in this case 3.Basis of forming reasons to believe and details of escapement of Income: From the information available on Insight Portal stated that while going through details available on ITBA Page 6 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 Efiling Portal, is found that the assessee has made bogus sub contract with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. For AY 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 42,00,00,000/- during FY 2013-14. Assessee had filed return of income AY 2014-15 total Income of Rs. 15,10,846/- which does not commensurate with the transaction made in bank account. 4. Applicability of the provisions of section 147/151 to the facts of the case: After analyzing the above information provided by Investigation Wing the data made available in the ITS details of the assessee and since, the assessee has filed the return of income for A. Y. 2014-15 prima facie, I have reason to conclude that the assessee 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/-. While forwarding the above information, Investigation Wing had also provided the relevant portion of Investigation. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the 1.T. Act for A.Y. 2014-15 by an amount of more than Rs. 1 lakh and I am satisfied that this is a fit case for re-opening the assessment for A.Y. 2014-15. In this case, more than four years have not lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Page 7 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice u/s.148 of the Act is being obtained from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad as per the provisions of Section 151 of the Act.” 5.6) The petitioner had thereafter uploaded the objections to reasons recorded in his letters dated 12.10.2021 for both the Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, however, due to a technical glitch in the Portal, the letter dated 12.10.2021 relating to Assessment Year 2014-2015 in pdf format could not be uploaded though letter relating to Assessment Year 2013-2014 was uploaded. The respondent No.2 finally uploaded complete reasons recorded along with order disposing of objections on 22.12.2021. 5.7) It is the case of the petitioner that upon going through the order disposing of objection dated 22.12.2021, the petitioner came to know that his objections were not transmitted to the respondent due to Page 8 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 technical glitch in the Portal, and therefore, he again uploaded the objections vide his letter dated 30.12.2021 enclosing therewith his earlier letter dated 12.10.2021. 5.8) It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter respondent No.2 has passed the order disposing of the objections dated 25.01.2022 without adverting to the objections raised by the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 has issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 31.01.2022 calling for details in order to complete the assessment proceedings. 5.9) The petitioner has therefore, approached this Court by filing the present petition challenging the action of the respondents. Page 9 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 6.Learned advocate Mr. Umaidsingh Bhati for the petitioner submitted that the notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 is an invalid notice because the reasons recorded were based on vague, inchoate and incorrect information, and that too at the direction of the Superior Authority [DGIT (System)]. The above notice for re-assessment has been issued on mere suspicion alone to make further verification. Therefore, the impugned notice is wholly bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction. 6.1) It was submitted that the impugned notice and the impugned orders disposing off the objections are illegal, bad-in-law and without jurisdiction because conditions precedent for reopening under provisions of section 147 and 151 of the Act are not satisfied. Page 10 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 6.2) It was submitted that section 147 of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax which he has reason to believe has escaped assessment. 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. 6.3) Referring to the reasons recorded, it was submitted that it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has entered into a bogus sub contract amounting to Rs. 21 Crore with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. during the Financial Year 2013-2014 relevant to the Assessment year 2014-2015. On the basis of the above piece of information, the respondent No. 1 observed that investment made by the petitioner is not reflected in his books of account and the same also did Page 11 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 not match with his income profile, hence further verification' is required. It was submitted that the information at the command of the respondent No.1 at the time of recording of reasons is vague and inchoate and therefore not tangible or credible. Further, the information is itself inconsistent as at one place it indicated the amount of bogus subcontract is Rs. 21 Crore, while at another place amount is mentioned as Rs. 42 Crore. 6.4) It was submitted that the Assessing Officer did not conduct any enquiry, investigation or verification to eliminate the inconsistency about the quantum of the amount i.e. Rs. 21 Crores or Rs. 42 Crores, in the information before recording the reasons and concluded that the petitioner has failed to disclose fully and truly all the particulars of his income and income has Page 12 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 escaped assessment by an amount of Rs. 21 Crores, without providing any basis. 6.5) It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has stated in the reasons that a further verification is required in this case which would tantamount to conducting fishing or roving enquiry for which reassessment is not permissible as per the settled position of the law as propounded in the decision of this Court in case of PCIT v/s Manzil Dineshkumar Shah reported in [2018] 406 ITR 326 (Guj) and in the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Precilion Holdings Ltd. v/s DCIT reported in [20191 412 ITR 43 (Bom). 6.6) 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 Page 13 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 Engineering Limited by the Investigation Wing, nor has any such report been made part of the reasons. It was submitted that there was neither credible information nor tangible material before the Assessing Officer 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. It was submitted that it is a settled position of the law that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer and no substitution or deletion is permissible. It was submitted that it is for the Assessing Officer to disclose and open his mind through reasons recorded by him and the reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and Page 14 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 should not suffer from any vagueness and reasons provide link between evidence and conclusion 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 submission 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 this case, which is necessary even in case Page 15 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 where the return of income has been accepted under section 143(1) of the Act. 6.7) Learned advocate Mr. Bhati submitted that the petitioner has finally uploaded objections to reasons recorded dated 12.10.2021 on 30.12.2021, which earlier could not be uploaded on 13.10.2021 due to technical glitch in Income Tax Portal. 6.8) It was submitted that notice under section 148 of the Act for the Assessment year 2014-2015 at the instance of a Superior Authority l.e. DGIT(System) was similar to notice under section 148 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 because the notices for the both the assessment years were issued simultaneously on similar information communicated along-with the directions by the DGIT(System) as mentioned in the reasons recorded. Page 16 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 6.9) It was submitted that the petitioner never entered into any contract or subcontract with Sadbhav Engineering Limited, which deals in big infrastructural projects, while petitioner has always been confined to area of activities related to manufacturing and trading of 'bidis' and related items. 6.10) It was submitted that the petitioner has not made any investment for the purpose of manufacturing and trading and therefore, the declaration of any investment etc. in books of account and consequently, in the return of income does not arise. 6.11) It was submitted that there was a complete lack of application of mind in stating that the returned income of the petitioner does not commensurate with the transaction made in the bank account since Page 17 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 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. It was further submitted that though about 6 years have elapsed as on 30.03.2021 from the end of the Assessment year 2014- 2015, however, it is mentioned by the respondent No.1 in the reasons recorded that 4 years have not elapsed. 6.12) It was submitted that the respondent could not establish that the facts stated in reasons recorded are correct and therefore, 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 2014-2015 Page 18 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 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 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 Page 19 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 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 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. for Page 20 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 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 the petitioner filed return of income for Assessment Year 2014-2015 of Rs. 15,10,846/- which does not commensurate with the transaction made in bank account 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 records and subsequent findings arose out of information gathered from the system, the case was reopened as per the law after Page 21 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 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 believe. At the stage of issue of notice under section 148, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which Page 22 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 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 income has escaped assessment. It was submitted that the justification of Assessing Officer’s belief is not to be judged from the Page 23 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 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 includes knowledge obtained from investigation study or instruction. The reasons which may weigh with the A.O. may be Page 24 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 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 necessary that the Income Tax Officer should hold a quasi judicial inquiry before acting under Section 147. It is enough if he on the Page 25 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 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 the 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 2014-2015, the Assessing Officer has not given any reason for disposing of the objection. The Assessing Officer has passed the following order on 22.12.2021 while disposing the objections of the petitioner: “In the instance 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 Page 26 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 of 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 13/10/2021. The submission of the assessee has been duly examined. Your objection on reopening of an assessment is not valid, the AO will form a belief that income has escaped assessment which is enough for issue of notice u/s.148. 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 year 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.” 9.Thereafter, on 25.01.2022, the Assessing Officer passed the following order disposing of the objections: Page 27 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 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 28 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 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. 10. In view of above facts, when the Page 29 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 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. 11. 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 2014-2015 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 of copy of this order. Page 30 of 31 C/SCA/4007/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/08/2022 12. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. The impugned orders dated 22.12.2021 and 25.01.2022 are quashed and set aside. 13. 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 31 of 31 "