C. P. Tank Branch, Nanubhai Desairoad v. S [:]1. The Assistant Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Central Circle 7(4),Mumbai, Income Tax, Central Circle 7(4),Mumbai

Digitallysigned bySHRADDHASHRADDHAKAMLESHKAMLESHTALEKARTALEKARDate:2023.02.1018:30:47+0530 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3 259 OF 2022 PETITIONER :The Sahebrao Deshmukh Co-op. BankLtd.,The Sahebrao Deshmukh Co-op. BankLtd., C. P. Tank Branch, Nanubhai DesaiRoad, 25, Sonarika Apartment,Mumbai – 400 004Road, 25, Sonarika Apartment,Mumbai – 400 004 ..VERSUS.. S [:]1. The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central Circle 7(4),Mumbai, Income Tax, Central Circle 7(4),Mumbai, RESPONDENT Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO AnnexeRoom No.656, 6[th] Floor, M. K. Road,Mumbai – 400 020Room No.656, 6[th] Floor, M. K. Road,Mumbai – 400 020 2. The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central Circle 7(2),Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, Room No.655, 6[th]Floor, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. Income Tax, Central Circle 7(2),Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, Room No.655, 6[th]Floor, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. 3. The Principal Commissioner ofIncome - Tax (Central) – 4, Mumbai,Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai– 400 020Income - Tax (Central) – 4, Mumbai,Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai– 400 020 4. Union of India,Through its Finance SecretaryDepartment of Revenue, Ministry ofFinance, 3[rd] Floor, Jeevan DeepBuilding, Sansad Marg, New Delhi –100 001.Through its Finance SecretaryDepartment of Revenue, Ministry ofFinance, 3[rd] Floor, Jeevan DeepBuilding, Sansad Marg, New Delhi –100 001. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr Satish Mody with Ms Aasifa Khan, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr Akhileshwar Sharma with Ms Shilpa Goel, Advocate for the Respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR ANDVALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.thRESERVED ON:8 DECEMBER, 2022.thPRONOUNCED ON:10 FEBRUARY, 2023. JUDGMENT: (PER : VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) .This is a writ petition invoking this Court’s powerunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challengeorder dated 31.03.2021, passed under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”), andfurther challenge to order dated 22.03.2022, rejecting thePetitioner’s objections to reopening of the assessment,Assessment Order dated 31.03.2022, passed under Section 147read with Section 143(3) of the Act, Notice of Demand dated31.03.2022, issued under Section 156 of the Act, and PenaltyNotice dated 31.03.2022, issued under Section 271(1)(c) of theAct, issued by Respondent No.2. 2.Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is madereturnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally. 3.The main ground for challenge in this petition is,that the Respondent No.2 – The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central Circle 7(2), whilst dealing with theobjections filed by the Petitioner to the notice for reopening ofassessment and the final order of assessment dated 31.03.2022alongwith the notice of demand and penalty notice are issuedwithout giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner inthe matter and all are passed contrary to the principles ofnatural justice. 4.It is the Petitioner’s case that it is a Co-operativeBank providing financial and banking services, and for thatpurpose, it is governed by the provisions of the Reserve Bank ofIndia Act, 1934, and directions given by the Reserve Bank ofIndia under that Act. It is further the Petitioner’s case that forthe Financial Year 2012-13, relevant to the Assessment Year2013-14 to which, this petition pertains, the Respondent No.1– The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle7(4), Mumbai, issued a Notice dated 31.03.2021, underSection 148 of the Act, claiming that it had reason to believethat the Petitioner’s income chargeable to tax for the relevant 4 4.It is the Petitioner’s case that it is a Co-operativeBank providing financial and banking services, and for thatpurpose, it is governed by the provisions of the Reserve Bank ofIndia Act, 1934, and directions given by the Reserve Bank ofIndia under that Act. It is further the Petitioner’s case that forthe Financial Year 2012-13, relevant to the Assessment Year2013-14 to which, this petition pertains, the Respondent No.1– The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle7(4), Mumbai, issued a Notice dated 31.03.2021, underSection 148 of the Act, claiming that it had reason to believethat the Petitioner’s income chargeable to tax for the relevant 4 Assessment Year 2013-14 had escaped assessment. By thatnotice, the Petitioner was called upon to file a return in theprescribed form, within 30 days from the service of the notice.The Notice also claimed that it was being issued after obtainingnecessary satisfaction of the Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax (Central), Mumbai-4. 5.Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 issued a Noticedated 26.01.2022, under the provisions Section 142(1) of theAct, calling upon the Petitioner to furnish on or before01.02.2022, the accounts and documents, details of which wereprovided in an annexure to the said Notice. In its reply dated 27.01.2022 filed online to theportal of the Income Tax Department, the Petitioner replied toboth, Notice dated 26.01.2022 issued under Section 142(1) ofthe Act, and with reference to Notice under Section 148 dated31.03.2021, requested the Respondent No.2 to furnish copy ofthe reasons for believing that the income chargeable to tax hadescaped assessment; in the said reply, it also stated that thePetitioner - Co-op. Bank had filed its regular return of incomein electronic form on 26.09.2013, declaring an income of 5 Rs.7,65,40,780/- under Section 143(1) of the Act, andAssessment Order dated 17.03.2016 had come to be passedthereon. On the same date, the Petitioner also filed its return ofincome. 6.By Notice dated 05.02.2022, the Respondent No.2provided reasons to the Petitioner with the information sought,which was in the form of an Annexure, and furtherclarifications, which were detailed in an Annexure to thatNotice, wherein it alleged that based upon survey conductedunder Section 133A carried out on 14.12.2016 at the premisesof Shri Shripal Vora at Bhavnagar, unaccounted cash was seizedfrom that premises and from a statements on oath recordedunder Section 131 of the Act, from the said Vora, it came to berevealed that the Petitioner was involved in accommodationentry business and charging commission @ 2.75% of thetransaction or accommodation entry provided. After receivingthis information, the Petitioner – Co-op. Bank, by its letterdated 21.02.2022, requested the Respondent No.2 to provide itwith the satisfaction note of the Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax, who had accorded approval to the reopening of the assessment. In its reply, it has also sought a copy of theappraisal report on the basis of which, reopening of assessmentwas ordered. There was no reply forthcoming from theRespondent No.2 to this letter, nor was the Petitioner providedwith the approval of the Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax or appraisal report. Thereafter, by Notice dated 24.02.2022, theRespondent No.2 fixed a hearing of the matter, withoutproviding the documents demanded by the Petitioner on28.02.2022. 7.By its letter dated 28.02.2022, the Petitioner onceagain referred to its earlier correspondence, wherein it hadrequested for a copy of the satisfaction note of the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax alongwith a copy of approvalgranted by him for reopening of the assessment. It alsoreiterated its request for the appraisal report from the DDIT(Inv), Bhavnagar, referred to in the reasons recorded forreopening and for the bank statements of the paper concern Thereafter, by Notice dated 24.02.2022, theRespondent No.2 fixed a hearing of the matter, withoutproviding the documents demanded by the Petitioner on28.02.2022. 7.By its letter dated 28.02.2022, the Petitioner onceagain referred to its earlier correspondence, wherein it hadrequested for a copy of the satisfaction note of the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax alongwith a copy of approvalgranted by him for reopening of the assessment. It alsoreiterated its request for the appraisal report from the DDIT(Inv), Bhavnagar, referred to in the reasons recorded forreopening and for the bank statements of the paper concern M/S Sanyam Gems Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner specifically tookobjection to proceed with the matter without providing thesedocuments and requested for a virtual hearing through videoconferencing before any orders for assessment would be passed.This reply, was admittedly uploaded to the portal of the IncomeTax Department and received by the Assessing Officer on28.02.2022 alongwith various Annexures submitted by thePetitioner. 8.It is the Petitioner’s case that on 22.03.2022, theRespondent No.2 passed an order dismissing the Petitioner’sobjections, thereby refusing to furnish to the Petitioner a copyof the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax to the reopening of the assessment as well as toproviding the appraisal report alongwith thedocuments/statements recorded during the search and seizureoperation on which, the Department was relying. By letter dated 23.03.2022, the Petitioner, havingreceived the order dated 22.03.2022, disposing of its objectionsreiterated its stand that the satisfaction note and order ofapproval had not been enclosed with the Notice under Section 148 of the Act, issued to Petitioner nor had the appraisal reportbeen provided to the Petitioner. The Petitioner also raised aspecific contention that it would like to cross-examine thepersons, who had given statements to the Income TaxDepartment during the search and seizure operation conductedat Bhavnagar, on the basis of which, the Petitioner had beenimplicated and the reopening notice issued. Further, letterdated 23.03.2022 to a notice issued dated 24.02.2022 fixinghearing on 28.02.2022 was sent by the Petitioner reiterating itsearlier objections raised by its letter dated 23.03.2022, seekingan opportunity for virtual hearing through video conferencingon the date fixed for hearing. 9.The Petitioner – Co-op. Bank claims that withoutany opportunity of hearing being given, it received a showcause notice dated 29.03.2022, wherein the Respondent No.2contended that the explanation given by the Petitioner was notacceptable and accordingly, the Petitioner was given a finalopportunity to explain the credit of Rs.2,00,00,000/- in itsbank with substantial and clear evidence. The Notice wasdigitally signed at 3:54 AM on 29.03.2022. By letter dated 30.03.2022, the Petitioner replied tothe show cause notice dated 29.03.2022 submitting itsexplanation, but reiterating therein its stand that thesatisfaction note and the appraisal report earlier requested bythem alongwith the statements of persons recorded in thesearch and seizure operation had not been furnished to it; italso reiterated its request for cross-examination of the persons,whose statements had been recorded and on the basis of which,approval for reopening of the assessment was granted by theCommissioner of Income Tax. This reply was also uploaded on30.03.2022. By letter dated 30.03.2022, the Petitioner replied tothe show cause notice dated 29.03.2022 submitting itsexplanation, but reiterating therein its stand that thesatisfaction note and the appraisal report earlier requested bythem alongwith the statements of persons recorded in thesearch and seizure operation had not been furnished to it; italso reiterated its request for cross-examination of the persons,whose statements had been recorded and on the basis of which,approval for reopening of the assessment was granted by theCommissioner of Income Tax. This reply was also uploaded on30.03.2022. 10.The Petitioner then states that it received impugnedassessment order dated 31.03.2022 reassessing its income forthe assessment year 2013-14 claiming that an amount ofRs.2,00,00,000/- had escaped assessment and holding that thetotal taxable income of the Petitioner for that period wasRs.22,05,94,840/-. Alongwith the assessment order, thePetitioner was served with a notice of demand under Section156, Penalty notice under Section 244 of the Act, and a noticeUnder Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively. 11.After notice of the petition was issued, the revenuehas opposed the admission of petition, primarily on the groundthat the Petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy of anappeal under the Act, and as such, would operate as a bar tothis Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. The Respondent No.2 was denying that it has notadhered to the principles of natural justice by giving anopportunity of hearing to the Petitioner in the matter, hasadmitted that the Respondent No.2 had not furnished a copyof the satisfaction note recorded by the Principal Commissionerof Income Tax (Central) Zone-4 at Mumbai. It has also notdenied the fact that it has not submitted to the Petitioner copiesof all the documents, which were the basis for recording itsreasons for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act,namely the statements of witnesses recorded during its seizureoperations. The Respondent No.2 has also stated at para 13 ofits affidavit that it has not allowed hearing through videoconferencing facility to the Petitioner before passing the assessment order, since the assessment proceedings in this casewere not carried out by the Central Faceless AssessmentCenter; that the assessment of the Central Circle is a physicalassessment as e-proceedings and functionality of videoconferencing as a hearing opportunity is not available to thePetitioner. 12.We have heard Mr Satish Mody, learned Counsel forthe Petitioner, Mr Akhileshwar Sharma, learned Counsel forthe Respondents and perused the record of the petition. 13.Mr Satish Mody, learned Counsel appearing for thePetitioner – Co-op. Bank, submits that the impugned orders areunsustainable since they are passed in gross contravention ofthe principles of natural justice, since the Respondent No.2 hasnot only consistently refused to furnish copies of the appraisalreport and the statements recorded in the search and seizureoperations conducted by the revenue as referred to in itsreasons, nor was the satisfaction recorded by the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax furnished to it. It is also thecontention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that it has,on several occasions requested for cross-examination of the 13.Mr Satish Mody, learned Counsel appearing for thePetitioner – Co-op. Bank, submits that the impugned orders areunsustainable since they are passed in gross contravention ofthe principles of natural justice, since the Respondent No.2 hasnot only consistently refused to furnish copies of the appraisalreport and the statements recorded in the search and seizureoperations conducted by the revenue as referred to in itsreasons, nor was the satisfaction recorded by the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax furnished to it. It is also thecontention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that it has,on several occasions requested for cross-examination of the persons, who have given statements under Section 131 of theAct, during the search and seizure operations conducted at thepremises of M/S Sanyam Gems Pvt. Ltd. It is further thesubmission of the Petitioner that the order dated 22.03.2022 ofthe Assessing Officer, rejecting the request of the Petitioner forthese documents, is without adverting to any reasons andwithout even addressing itself to the contentions raised by thePetitioner in its request, vide letters dated 20.02.2022 and27.01.2022. The learned Counsel relies upon a judgment ofthis Court dated 15.02.2022, passed in Writ Petition No.546of 2022, in Tata CapitalFinancial Services Limited ..V/s..Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle 1(3)(1) andothers, wherein this Court has given general directions to therevenue when dealing with cases of reopening of assessmentunder Section 148; that in Tata Capital Financial ServicesLimited ..V/s.. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle1(3)(1) and others(supra), this Court has specifically directedthat the standard form/request sent by the Assessing Officer forobtaining approval with the order of approval should beannexed to the communication regarding reasons forreassessment and that if the reasons make reference to any other document or a letter or a report, such portions which were withreference to the assessee should be reproducted in the notice;that a personal hearing shall be given and minimum sevenworking days advance notice of such personal hearing shall begranted. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer has incomplete violence of the directions of this Court, withoutfurnishing a copy of the documents forming the basis of which,the reopening was ordered nor giving a clear notice of hearingof the matter, has acted in contravention of the principles ofnatural justice, and consequently in breach of the Article 14 ofthe Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Assessingofficer has acted in an arbitrary manner and hence, theimpugned orders are required to be set aside, directions begiven to the Assessing Officer to provide all the documentsrequested by the Petitioner and after a reply to the same is filed,hear the matter afresh before passing any orders on the noticeunder Section 148 of the Act. 14.On the other hand, Mr Akhileshwar Sharma, learnedCounsel appearing for the Respondents supports the impugnedorders submitting that the approval, under Section 151 of the Act, has been produced alongwith the affidavit-in-reply of theAssessing Officer and the approval order considers all thematerial that the Assessing Officer has placed before thePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax, before thesame hasbeen granted for the reopening of assessment. 14.On the other hand, Mr Akhileshwar Sharma, learnedCounsel appearing for the Respondents supports the impugnedorders submitting that the approval, under Section 151 of the Act, has been produced alongwith the affidavit-in-reply of theAssessing Officer and the approval order considers all thematerial that the Assessing Officer has placed before thePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax, before thesame hasbeen granted for the reopening of assessment. 15.In Tata Capital Financial Services Limited ..V/s..Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1) andothers(supra), this Court was also dealing with the similarnotice issued under Section 148 of the Act, wherein thePetitioner had taken a specific defence that it was aNon-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) registered with theReserve Bank of India (RBI) and that under Clause 3(2) ofNotification dated 22.02.2007, issued by the RBI, incomeincluding interest/discount or any other charges of NPAs (Non-Performing Assets) shall be recognized only when it is actuallyrealised. It was the Petitioner’s case in that matter that therebeing a mandate of the RBI, that income was not offered to taxin the return of income on accrual basis, but was offered to taxon receipt basis and a provision was made in the annual reportof the Petitioner for the relevant assessment year not crediting interest and other charges of Non-Performing Assets to thestatements of profit and loss account. Without dealing with all the Petitioner’s objections, and with the specific request of the Petitioner therein, toprovidecopies of documents evidencing reasons for reopeningassessment, as also without providing the approval forreopening of such assessment, the order of assessment waspassed without any personal hearing. In those circumstances,this Court held as under : “In the order passed on 17[th] December, 2021,rejecting the objections the Assessing Officer has not dealtwith all these points. The Assessing Officer was dutybound to deal with all the submissions made by petitionerin its objections and not just brush aside uncomfortableobjections under the carpet. We have to note thatpetitioner had, with the objections, also requested theAssessing Officer to provide photocopies of documentsevidencing request sent by the Assessing Officer to thePrincipal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/ChiefCommissioner/Principal Commissioner/Commissioner interms of Section 151(1) of the Act for obtaining anapproval for re-opening of the assessment for the yearunder consideration and documents evidencing theapproval received from the Principal Chief CommissionerofIncomeTax/Chief Commissioner/PrincipalCommissioner/Commissioner. The Assessing Officer instead of providing thesedocuments simply dismissed petitioner’s request by sayingit is purely an administrative matter and all correspondence have been made through system. TheAssessing Officer was duty bound to provide all thedocuments called for by petitioner and his reluctance toprovide these documents only would make the court drawadverse inference against respondent……. The Assessing Officer instead of providing thesedocuments simply dismissed petitioner’s request by sayingit is purely an administrative matter and all correspondence have been made through system. TheAssessing Officer was duty bound to provide all thedocuments called for by petitioner and his reluctance toprovide these documents only would make the court drawadverse inference against respondent……. Therefore, the order dated 17[th] December, 2021impugned in this petition is quashed and set aside. Thematter is remanded for denovo consideration. Theconcerned officer shall keep in mind that the exercise ofconsidering the assessee’s objections to the re-opening ofassessment is not a mechanical ritual but a quasi judicialfunction. The order disposing of the objections shoulddeal with each objection and give proper reasons for theconclusion. He shall also grant a personal hearing topetitioner and the notice of personal hearing shall becommunicated atleast seven working days in advance. Ifthe said officer is relying on any judgment or order of anyCourt or Tribunal, a list thereof shall be provided topetitioner alongwith notice of personal hearing so thatpetitioner will be able to deal with or distinguish thesejudgments/orders in the personal hearing. The AssessingOfficer shall deal with all previous submissions whileconsidering the assessee’s objections, deal with eachobjections and give proper reasons for its conclusion.” After referring to a judgment of the Delhi HighCourt in the case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. ..V/s..AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2017) 398 ITRpage 198 (Delhi), this Court in Tata Capital Financial ServicesLimited ..V/s.. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle1(3)(1) and others(supra), further passed general directions tothe revenue for compliance in similar cases is in future. The directions are quoted as under : “In the circumstances, the Revenue is directed toadhere to the following: (a) While communicating the reasons for re-opening the assessment, a copy of the standardform/request sent by the Assessing Officer forobtaining approval of the Superior Officer shoulditself be provided to the assessee. This wouldcontain comment or endorsement of the SuperiorOfficer with his name, designation and date. The Assessing Officer shall not merely statethe reasons in the letter addressed to the assessee. (b) If the reasons make reference to any otherdocument or a letter or a report, such document orletter or report should be enclosed to the reasons.Such portion as it does not bear reference to theassessee concerned could be redacted. (c) The order disposing the objections shoulddeal with each objections and give proper reasonsfor the conclusion. (d) A personal hearing shall be given andminimum seven working days advance notice ofsuch personal hearing shall be granted. (e) If the Assessing Officer is going to rely onany judgment/order of any Tribunal or Courtreference/citation of these judgment/orders shall beprovided alongwith notice for personal hearing sothat the assessee will be able to dealwith/distinguish these judgments/orders. A copy of this order be placed before the membersof the Central Board of Direct Taxes who shall issueguidelines to all its officers based on the directions givenabove with clear instructions that they shall be strictlyfollowed. We only hope that, this will reduce the sameerrors being repeated by the concerned revenue authorities and will not drive the assessee to rush to the court.Thereby, the burden on the court will also get reduced.” 16.In the present case, the Assessing Officer appears tohave acted in complete contravention of the general directionsissued by this Court in matters, where a notice under Section148 of the Act, for reopening of assessment is issued by therevenue. A copy of this order be placed before the membersof the Central Board of Direct Taxes who shall issueguidelines to all its officers based on the directions givenabove with clear instructions that they shall be strictlyfollowed. We only hope that, this will reduce the sameerrors being repeated by the concerned revenue authorities and will not drive the assessee to rush to the court.Thereby, the burden on the court will also get reduced.” 16.In the present case, the Assessing Officer appears tohave acted in complete contravention of the general directionsissued by this Court in matters, where a notice under Section148 of the Act, for reopening of assessment is issued by therevenue. To begin with, the Assessing Officer was duty boundto issue, alongwith the notice under Section 148 of the Act, thereasons which formed the basis for reopening of assessment, thesatisfaction note and order of the Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax, who granted approval to issuance of the saidnotice alongwith the note of the Assessing Officer in support ofhis request for approval, the appraisal report from the DDIT(Inv) Bhavnagar, and the statements of Shri Shripal Vora atBhavnagar, recorded under Section 131 in the search andseizure of the premises of M/S Sanyam Gems Pvt. Ltd, whichwere referred to in the notice. None of these documents, weresent to the Petitioner in compliance with the general directionsissued by this Court. It is also borne from the record that despite several requests from the Petitioner, specificallydemanding a copy of all these documents, the Assessing Officerhas refused to furnish copies of the same to the Petitioner.Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has, by order dated22.03.2022 rejected the request of the Petitioner for furnishingall these documents without assigning any reasons for suchrejection nor dealing with the specific objections and therequest made by the Petitioner in its order. In fact, the orderdated 22.03.2022 is diametrically opposed to the specificobservations of this Court at para 4 in Tata Capital FinancialServices Limited ..V/s.. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle 1(3)(1) and others (supra). Thereafter, despite a specificrequest for a personal hearing by the Petitioner before passingthe assessment order, the Assessing Officer has neither grantedthe same nor dealt with the request and has gone ahead andpassed the assessment order on 31.03.2022, without hearing tothe Petitioner. This arbitrary act of the Assessing Officer is alsocontrary to the specific directions of this Court contained inpara 8(d) in Tata Capital Financial Services Limited ..V/s..Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1) andothers(supra), wherein Assessing Officers have been directed to give a personal hearing to assesses with a minimum sevenworking days advance notice of such personal hearing. 17.Considering all the above circumstances andapplying the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Tata CapitalFinancial Services Limited ..V/s.. Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle 1(3)(1) and others (supra), and specificdirections contained therein to the revenue, we are of theconsidered opinion that the Assessing Officer has acted in grossviolation of the directions in Tata Capital Financial ServicesLimited ..V/s.. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle1(3)(1) and others(supra), and in contravention of theprovisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.Consequently, the impugned orders i.e. order dated 31.03.2021issued under Section 148 of the Act, order rejecting theobjections to reopening dated 22.03.2022 passed by theRespondent No.2, Assessment order dated 31.03.2022, Noticeof demand dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 156 of theAct, and Penalty notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section271(1)(c) of the Act, are quashed and set aside. 18.The matter is now remanded back to the AssessingOfficer, who shall provide the Petitioner with the satisfactionnote of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, grantingapproval for issuance of Notice under Section 148 of the Act,the appraisal report from DDIT (Inv), and bank statements ofM/S Sanyam Gems Pvt. Ltd., the statement of Shri Shripal Voraat Bhavnagar, recorded under Section 131 of the Act, and allother documents and material, which form the basis of thereasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing noticeunder Section 148 of the Act. After furnishing all thesedocuments to the Petitioner, the Assessing Officer shall complywith the specific directions laid down by this Court inparagraph 8 in Tata Capital Financial Services Limited ..V/s..Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1) andothers(supra), and after giving an opportunity of hearing to thePetitioner, shall proceed to pass its orders. 19.Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs. (VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.)