Abeer Textiles Private Limited Thru Director Naishadhindrakant Parikh v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2789 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA andHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA ========================================================== ========================================================== ABEER TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED THRU DIRECTOR NAISHADHINDRAKANT PARIKH Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1) ========================================================== Appearance: HIREN J TRIVEDI(8808) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MR MR BHATT SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR KARAN SANGHANI WITH MR MUNJAAL BHATT FOR M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIAandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 29/08/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren j. Trivedifor the petitioner and learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.R. Bhatt with learned advocateMr. Karan Sanghani with learned advocate Mr.Munjaal Bhatt for M.R. Bhatt and Co. for therespondent. 2.Having regard to the controversy involved inthe present case which lies in a very narrowcompass, with the consent of the learnedadvocates for the respective parties, thematter is taken up for final hearing. 3.Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of noticeof rule on behalf of the respondent. 4.By this petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 25.03.2021 issuedunder section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(For short “the Act”) for reopening of theassessment proceedings for the AssessmentYear 2014-2015 and order disposing objectionsraised by the petitioner company dated11.08.2021. 5.Brief facts of the case are as under : 5.1)The petitioner is a companyincorporated under the provisions of theCompanies Act, 1956 and is engaged inmanufacturing business. 5.2)The petitioner company filed itsreturn of income under section 139(1) of theAct for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 on29.09.2014 declaring total loss of Rs.(-)10,81,506/-. 5.3)Case of the petitioner was taken forscrutiny assessment under section 143(2) ofthe Act. The Assessing Officer issued noticeunder section 142(1) of the Act dated15.09.2016 calling for details of sharepremium received along with details like PAN,address and copies of income tax return. 5.4)The petitioner vide letter dated22.09.2016 supplied the necessary details ascalled for. 5.5)The Assessing Officer issued yetanother notice dated 2.12.2016 calling forproviding copy of CA certificate for marketvalue of shares by applying Rule 11UA of theIncome Tax Rules, 1962 with regard to premiumreceived from Amazon Textile Pvt Ltd of Rs.2,20,00,000/- and also asked the petitionercompany to explain why provisions of section56(2) of the Act should not be invoked. 5.6)The petitioner vide reply dated8.12.2016 provided the CA certificate andgave explanation for non applicability ofsection 56(2)(viib) of the Act to the case ofthe petitioner. 5.7)The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order dated 26.12.2016 wherein noaddition was made under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, however addition on account ofcapital gains of Rs. 93,17,500/- was made. 5.8)The respondent issued notice undersection 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 forthe Assessment Year 2014-2015 for reopeningthe assessment. 5.9)The petitioner therefore, filed thereturn of income on 19.04.2021 and requestedfor a copy of the reasons recorded by the 5.6)The petitioner vide reply dated8.12.2016 provided the CA certificate andgave explanation for non applicability ofsection 56(2)(viib) of the Act to the case ofthe petitioner. 5.7)The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order dated 26.12.2016 wherein noaddition was made under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, however addition on account ofcapital gains of Rs. 93,17,500/- was made. 5.8)The respondent issued notice undersection 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 forthe Assessment Year 2014-2015 for reopeningthe assessment. 5.9)The petitioner therefore, filed thereturn of income on 19.04.2021 and requestedfor a copy of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Such reasons recordeddated 22.03.2021 were provided to thepetitioner by communication dated 11.05.2021.The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officerfor reopening the assessment under section147 of the Act read as under : “Reasons for reopening the assessment inthe case of M/s. ABEER TEXTILE PVT LTDfor A.Y.2014-15 u/s 147 of the I.T. Act. 1. Brief facts of the case: The originalreturn of income was filed by theassessee on 29.09.2014 declaring totalincome of Rs.(-)10,81,506/-. Assessmentu/s 143(3) was completed on 26.12.2016by determining total income at ofRs.85,35,990/-. 2. Brief details of informationreceived: In this case, during thecourse of the assessment proceedings inthe case of Amazon Textiles Pvt Ltd.(PAN ) for A.Y.2014-15, it isseen that the Amazon Textiles Pvt Ltd.haspurchasedsharesofRs.24,30,50,000/- from the assessee onmore than fair market value. On perusalof the case records of the assessee, itis seen that during the year underconsideration, the assessee has receivedshare premium of Rs.24,30,50,000/-. The assessee-company has claimed to have complied with the rule 11UA of the I.T.Rules. Further, the assessee-company hasdeclared the loss of Rs.(-)867/- as perthe return of income for AY.2013-14.Thus, the financial results of theassessee-company had been adverselyaffected. Therefore, the assessee hasreceived share premium amounting to Rs.24,30,50,000/- which is required to betaxed under the provisions of section56(2)(vii) of the Act. 3. Analysis of information received:Asper information, during the course ofthe assessment proceedings in the caseof Amazon Textiles Pvt Ltd. (PANAABCB6914E) for A.Y.2014-15, it is seenthat the Amazon Textiles Pvt Ltd. haspurchased shares of Rs.24,30,50,000/-from the assessee on more than fairmarket value. On perusal of the caserecords of the assessee, it is seen thatduring the year under consideration, theassessee has received share premium ofRs.24,30,50,000/-. The assessee-company has claimed to havecomplied with the rule 11UA of the I.T.Rules. Further, the assessee-company hasdeclared the loss of Rs.(-)867/- as perthe return of income for AY.2013-14.Thus, the financial results of theassessee-company had been adverselyaffected. Therefore, the assessee hasreceived share premium amounting to Rs.24,30,50,000/- which is required to betaxed under the provisions of section56(2)(vii) of the Act. 4. Enquiries made by the AO as sequel toinformation collected/ received: In thiscase, specific information has beenreceivedclearlyoutliningthesystematic evasion of taxes by theassessee. The facts as enumerated abovehave been found out on examination onthe case records of the assessee and areself explanatory. Therefore, no furtherenquiry is required in this case. On thebasis of the same there are reasons tobelieve that the income chargeable totax has escaped assessment. 4. Enquiries made by the AO as sequel toinformation collected/ received: In thiscase, specific information has beenreceivedclearlyoutliningthesystematic evasion of taxes by theassessee. The facts as enumerated abovehave been found out on examination onthe case records of the assessee and areself explanatory. Therefore, no furtherenquiry is required in this case. On thebasis of the same there are reasons tobelieve that the income chargeable totax has escaped assessment. 5. Findings of the AO: After analysis ofthe information with the facts availableon record, it can be concluded that theAmazon Textiles Pvt Ltd. has purchasedshares of Rs.24,30,50,000/- from theassessee on more than fair market value.On perusal of the case records of theassessee, it is seen that during theyear under consideration, the assesseehasreceivedsharepremiumofRs.24,30,50,000/-. The assessee-companyhas claimed to have complied with therule 11UA of the I.T. Rules. Further,the assessee-company has declared theloss of Rs.(-)867/- as per the return ofincome for A.Y.2013-14. Thus, thefinancial results of the assessee-company had been adversely affected.Therefore, the assessee has receivedsharepremiumamountingtoRs.24,30,50,000/- which is required to betaxed under the provisions of section56(2)(viib) of the Act. Therefore, anamount of Rs. 24,30,50,000/- has escapedassessment and the same is required tobe brought to tax. 6. Basis of forming reason to believeand details of escapement of income: In this regard, it is stated that theinformation was not in the possession ofthe undersigned earlier. The saidinformation/scheme of tax evasion couldbe unearthed only after receiving theinformation. Although, during the courseof assessment proceedings, the assesseesubmitted, P&L account, Balance sheetand other details, the scheme of taxevasion was embedded in annual report,audited P&L A/c, balance sheet and booksof account in such a manner that itcould not be detected by the AO andcould be detected only receiving theinformation. It can be reasonablyconcluded that there is failure on thepart of assessee to disclose fully andtruly all necessary facts during theassessment proceedings. For aforesaid reasons, it is not a caseof change of opinion by the AO. It isevident from the above facts asmentioned in the para 3 & 5, that theassessee had not truly and fullydisclosed material facts necessary forhis assessment for the year underconsideration. On the basis of the above, I have reasonto believe that income of the assesseeto the extent of Rs.24,30,50,000/- hasescaped assessment for the year underconsideration. Therefore, I am satisfiedthat it is a fit case for initiatingproceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 7. Paragraph will include escapement ofincome chargeable to tax in relation to any assets (including financial interestin any entity) located outside India: NA 8. Applicability of the provisions ofsection 147/151 to the facts of thecase: For aforesaid reasons, it is not a caseof change of opinion by the AO. It isevident from the above facts asmentioned in the para 3 & 5, that theassessee had not truly and fullydisclosed material facts necessary forhis assessment for the year underconsideration. On the basis of the above, I have reasonto believe that income of the assesseeto the extent of Rs.24,30,50,000/- hasescaped assessment for the year underconsideration. Therefore, I am satisfiedthat it is a fit case for initiatingproceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 7. Paragraph will include escapement ofincome chargeable to tax in relation to any assets (including financial interestin any entity) located outside India: NA 8. Applicability of the provisions ofsection 147/151 to the facts of thecase: In this case a return of income wasfiled for the year under considerationand regular assessment u/s. 143(3) ofthe Act on 26.12.2016 Since, 4 yearsfrom the end of the relevant year hasexpired in this case, the requirement toinitiate proceedings u/s. 147 are reasonto believe that income for the yearunderconsiderationhasescapedassessment because of failure on thepart of the assessee to disclose fullyand truly all material facts necessaryfor assessment for the assessment yearunder consideration. It is pertinent tomention here that reasons to believethat income has escaped assessment forthe year under consideration have beenrecorded above (refer paragraph 4, 5 and6). In this regard, it is also pertinentto mention here that above referreddetails have not been called for by theAO and thus are not been examined by theAO nor such details are furnished by theassessee. It was only after receivingthe information that this scheme of taxevasion could be unearthed. It ispertinent to mention here that theaforesaid information was not in thepossession of the undersigned earlier.have carefully considered the assessmentrecords containing the submissions madeby the assessee in response to variousnotices issued during the assessment proceedings and have noted that theassessee has not fully and trulydisclosed the following material factsnecessary for assessment for the yearunder consideration: In the AY 2014-15, there is anescapement of income chargeable to taxaggregating to Rs.24,30,50,000/-. It is evident from the above facts thatthe assessee had not truly and fullydisclosed material facts necessary forassessmentfortheyearunderconsiderationtherebynecessitatingreopening u/s. 147 of the Act. It is true that the assessee has filed acopy of annual report and audited Profit& Loss A/c and Balance Sheet alongwithreturnofincomewherevariousinformation/material were disclosed.However, the requisite full and truedisclosure of all the material factsnecessary for assessment has not beenmade as noted above. It is pertinent tomention here that even though theassessee has produced books of account,annual report, audited P&L A/c andBalance Sheet or other evidence asmentioned above, the requisite materialfacts as noted above in the reasons forreopening were embedded in such a mannerthat material evidence could not bediscovered by the AO and could have beendiscoveredwithduediligence,accordingly attracting provisions ofExplanation 1 of section 147 of the Act.It is evident from the above discussion that in this case, the issues underconsideration were never examined by theAO during the course of regularassessment This fact is corroboratedfrom the contents of notices issued bythe AO u/s 143(2)/142(1) and order sheetentries recorded during the assessmentproceedings. It is important tohighlight here that material factsrelevant for the assessment on theissue(s) under consideration were notfiled during the course of assessmentproceeding and the same may be embeddedin annual report, audited P&L A/c,Balance sheet and books of accounts insuch a manner that it would require duediligence by the AO to extract theseinformation. For aforestated reasons, itis not a case of change of opinion bythe AO. In this case more than four years havelapsed from the end of the assessmentyearunderconsideration.Hencenecessary sanction to issue the noticeu/s. 148 is being requested fromPrincipal Commissioner of Income tax asper the provisions of section 151 of theAct.” 5.10)The petitioner company raised itsobjections to the reasons recorded videletter dated 26.05.2021. objections vide order dated 11.08.2021.Thereafter, assessment proceedings continuedand notices under section 142(1) of the Actdated 11.08.2021 and 24.11.2021 were issued.The petitioner also gave replies dated30.11.2021 and 13.01.2021 to such notices. 5.12) Being aggrieved by the action of therespondent of issuing notice and disposing ofthe objections of the petitioner, thepetitioner has preferred this petition. 6.Learned advocate Mr. Hiren J. Trivedi for the petitioner submitted that only reason forreopening of assessment under section 147 ofthe Act is that as per the Assessing Officer, the assessee company has issuedshares and received share premium i.e. amountin excess of fair market value of sharesamounting to Rs. 24,30,50,000/- which is required to be taxed under the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. It wassubmitted that the assessee company hadalready been assessed and order section143(3) of the Act was passed on 26.12.2016.At the time of filing the return of income aswell as during the course of assessmentproceedings, the assessee company had filedthe financial statement of the company whichshows that the company has issued equityshares during the year under consideration atpremium. It was therefore, submitted that allnecessary materials pertaining to the issuefor which the case of the company has beenreopened was already available on record andin fact during the assessment proceedings,theassesseehadsubmittedvariousexplanations as well as documentary evidenceswhich included certain details with respectto the issue of 2,20,00,000 shares which theassessee company had already supplied to theAssessing Officer. It was submitted that after consideration of all these materials,the order under section 143(3) of the Actaccepting the return filed by theassesseecame to be passed. 6.1) It was submitted that during theoriginalassessmentproceedingsthe petitioner had provided copy of auditedfinancial statement, copy of Form NO.2 withrespecttoallotmentofshares, acknowledgment of return of income filed bythe shareholder and copy of share applicationmoney on account appearing in the books ofaccount of petitioner along with copy of bankstatement as called for by the AssessingOfficer. It was further submitted that thepetitioner company also provided the CAcertificate for market value under Rule 11UA/11U of the Rules as called for by theAssessing Officer. It was submitted thatsince the shares were issued at fair value, the petitioner company has not received anyexcess payment and thus provisions of section56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable tothe case of the petitioner which fact wasbrought to the notice of the AssessingOfficer. acknowledgment of return of income filed bythe shareholder and copy of share applicationmoney on account appearing in the books ofaccount of petitioner along with copy of bankstatement as called for by the AssessingOfficer. It was further submitted that thepetitioner company also provided the CAcertificate for market value under Rule 11UA/11U of the Rules as called for by theAssessing Officer. It was submitted thatsince the shares were issued at fair value, the petitioner company has not received anyexcess payment and thus provisions of section56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable tothe case of the petitioner which fact wasbrought to the notice of the AssessingOfficer. 6.2) LearnedadvocateMr.Trivedisubmitted that after examining the issuethreadbare, the Assessing Officer made noadditions under section 56(2)(viib) of theAct and therefore, reopening is nothing butmere change of opinion. It was furthersubmitted that reason to believe must have alive link with formation of opinion on thebasis of any tangible new material and nosuchnew material has been brought on record. 6.3) Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi furthersubmitted that reopening of assessment is beyond the applicable limit of period of limitation of four years as per section 147read with section 149 of the Act. It wassubmitted that during the course of originalassessment proceedings, the petitionercompany duly submitted each and every detailcalled for and such details were verified bythe Assessing officer and therefore,reassessment proceedings beyond a period offour years cannot be permitted. 7.On the other hand learned Senior Advocate Mr.M.R. Bhatt for the Revenue submitted that thepetition is filed at a pre-mature stageinasmuch as only a notice under section 148read with section 147 of the Act for theAssessment year 2014-2014 has been issued andin the event the petitioner is aggrieved bythe reassessment proceedings, alternativeefficacious remedy is available by way of anappeal before the CIT(Appeal) and thereafterbefore the Tribunal as per the provisions of the Act. 7.1) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhattsubmitted that the case was reopened on thebasis of information that during the courseof assessment proceedings in case of AmazonTextiles Pvt. Ltd. it was observed that theAmazon Textiles Pvt. Ltd. had purchasedshares of Rs. 24,30,50,000/- from thepetitioner on fair market value and thepetitioner had received share premium of Rs.24,30,50,000/- whereas the petitioner haddeclared loss of Rs. (-) 867 as per thereturn of income for Assessment Year 2013-2014 and therefore, the share premium doesnot commensurate with the financial status ofthe petitioner. 7.2) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhattsubmitted that petitioner failed to submitvaluation report under Rule 11UA based on the audited balance sheet and therefore, there isclear failure on part of the petitioner tofully and truly disclose material factsnecessary for assessment. It was therefore,submitted that there is escapement of incomein view of the aforesaid facts which givejurisdiction to the Assessing Officer toreopen the assessment. 8.Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates on both the sides, itappears that the impugned notice undersection 148 of the Act, 1961 is issued onlyon the ground that the assessee has receivedshare premium amounting to Rs.24,30,50,000/-which is required to be taxed under theprovisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 9.During the original assessment proceedings the petitioner had provided copy of auditedfinancial statement, copy of Form no.2 with respecttoallotmentofshares, acknowledgment of return of income filed bythe shareholder and copy of share application money on account appearing in the books ofaccount of the petitioner along with copy ofbank statement. 10.The petitioner assessee had submitted 8.Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates on both the sides, itappears that the impugned notice undersection 148 of the Act, 1961 is issued onlyon the ground that the assessee has receivedshare premium amounting to Rs.24,30,50,000/-which is required to be taxed under theprovisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 9.During the original assessment proceedings the petitioner had provided copy of auditedfinancial statement, copy of Form no.2 with respecttoallotmentofshares, acknowledgment of return of income filed bythe shareholder and copy of share application money on account appearing in the books ofaccount of the petitioner along with copy ofbank statement. 10.The petitioner assessee had submitted copy of valuation certificate determining thefair value of the shares by applying Rule11UA/11U of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Allother details proving the identity,creditworthiness and genuineness of theshareholders have also been provided to theAssessing Officer. 11.Further, the shares have been issued to Amazon Textiles Private Limited at the fairvalue determined in accordance to Rule 11UA/Uand hence no excess payment has been receivedin respect of the shares issued. Thus the provision of section 56(2)(viib) of the Actcannot be made applicable in facts of thecase. 12.The Assessing Officer finalised theassessment after examining the issuethreadbare and did not make any addition under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Thus,the present reopening of assessment is basedupon mere change of opinion as there is nofresh tangible material to show escapement of income due to failure on part of thepetitioner to disclose fully and truly anymaterial fact necessary for assessment. 13.It is therefore, apparent that there is change of opinion by the Assessing Officer toreopen the assessment for the Assessment Year2014-2015, more particularly, when the issueof share premium required to be taxed was already considered during the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act,1961. The Assessing Officer cannot have anyjurisdiction to issue the notice undersection 148 of the Act, 1961 for reopeningthe assessment for the year underconsideration more particularly, when theassessment is sought to be reopened beyond aperiod of four years as held by the SupremeCourt in case of Commissioner of Income tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in2010(2) SCC 723 as under: “2. A short question which arisesfor determination in this batch ofcivil appeals is, whether theconcept of "change of opinion"stands obliterated with effect from1st April, 1989, i.e., aftersubstitution of Section 147 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 by Direct TaxLaws (Amendment) Act, 1987? xxxx 6. On going through the changes,quoted above, made to Section 147 ofthe Act, we find that, prior toDirect Tax Laws (Amendment) Act,1987, re-opening could be done underabove two conditions and fulfillmentof the said conditions aloneconferred jurisdiction on the v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in2010(2) SCC 723 as under: “2. A short question which arisesfor determination in this batch ofcivil appeals is, whether theconcept of "change of opinion"stands obliterated with effect from1st April, 1989, i.e., aftersubstitution of Section 147 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 by Direct TaxLaws (Amendment) Act, 1987? xxxx 6. On going through the changes,quoted above, made to Section 147 ofthe Act, we find that, prior toDirect Tax Laws (Amendment) Act,1987, re-opening could be done underabove two conditions and fulfillmentof the said conditions aloneconferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a backassessment, but in section 147 ofthe Act [with effect from 1st April,1989], they are given a go-by andonly one condition has remained,viz., that where the AssessingOfficer has reason to believe thatincome has escaped assessment,confers jurisdiction to re- open theassessment.Therefore,post-1stApril, 1989, power to re-open ismuch wider. However, one needs togive a schematic interpretation tothe words "reason to believe"failing which, we are afraid,Section 147 would give arbitrarypowers to the Assessing Officer tore-open assessments on the basis of"mere change of opinion", whichcannot be per se reason to re-open.We must also keep in mind theconceptual difference between powerto review and power to re-assess.The Assessing Officer has no powerto review; he has the power to re-assess. But re-assessment has to bebased on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of"change of opinion" is removed, ascontended on behalf of theDepartment, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review wouldtake place. One must treat theconcept of "change of opinion" as anin-built test to check abuse ofpower by the Assessing Officer.Hence, after 1st April, 1989,Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangiblematerial" to come to the conclusionthat there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have alive link with the formation of thebelief. Our view gets support fromthe changes made to Section 147 ofthe Act, as quoted hereinabove.UndertheDirectTaxLaws(Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliamentnot only deleted the words "reasonto believe" but also inserted theword "opinion" in Section 147 of theAct. However, on receipt ofrepresentations from the Companiesagainst omission of the words"reason to believe", Parliament re-introduced the said expression anddeleted the word "opinion" on theground that it would vest arbitrarypowers in the Assessing Officer. Wequote hereinbelow the relevantportion of Circular No.549 dated31st October, 1989, which reads asfollows: "7.2 Amendment made by theAmendingAct,1989,toreintroducetheexpression`reason to believe' in Section147.--Anumberofrepresentations were receivedagainst the omission of thewords `reason to believe' fromSection147andtheirsubstitution by the `opinion' ofthe Assessing Officer. It waspointed out that the meaning ofthe expression, `reason tobelieve' had been explained in anumber of court rulings in thepast and was well settled andits omission from section 147would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopenpast assessments on mere changeof opinion. To allay thesefears, the Amending Act, 1989,has again amended section 147 toreintroduce the expression `hasreason to believe' in place ofthe words `for reasons to berecorded by him in writing, isoftheopinion'.Other provisions of the new section147, however, remain the same." 14. Inviewofforegoingreasons, considering the facts of the case impugnednotice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 isnot tenable in law and is accordingly quashedand set aside and order dated 11.08.2021 disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner against the reopening is also the Assessing Officer to reopenpast assessments on mere changeof opinion. To allay thesefears, the Amending Act, 1989,has again amended section 147 toreintroduce the expression `hasreason to believe' in place ofthe words `for reasons to berecorded by him in writing, isoftheopinion'.Other provisions of the new section147, however, remain the same." 14. Inviewofforegoingreasons, considering the facts of the case impugnednotice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 isnot tenable in law and is accordingly quashedand set aside and order dated 11.08.2021 disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner against the reopening is also quashed and set aside. 15.Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)