Chittewan v. Iniome Tax Offier – 13(2)(2),Having His Offie At Room

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.331 OF 2016ALONG WITHWRIT PETITION NO.332 OF 2016 SLS Energy Pvt. Ltd.having its offie at Ground Floor,D.B. House, Gen A.K. Vaidya Marg,Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063.…Petitioner Versus 1. Iniome Tax Offier – 13(2)(2),having his offie at Room No.147, 1[st] Floor, Aayakar Bhavan,Maharshi Karve Road,Mumbai-400 020. 2. Pr. Commissioner of Iniome-tax-13,having his offie at Room No.416,4[th] Floor, Aayakar Bhavan,Maharshi Karve Road,Mumbai-400 020 3. Union of Indiathrough Ministry of Finanie,North Bloik, New Delhi-110 001.…Respondents *** Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Advoiate a/w Mr. B.V. Jhaveri, Mr. Sriram,Mr. Ravi Sawana, Mr. Dinesh Kukreja and Ms. Bhargavi Rawal forthe Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma a/w Ms. Shilpa Goel for the Respondents. *** CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR & KAMAL KHATA, JJ. PRONOUNCED ON : 27 JUNE 2023 (Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.) .Common questions of law and faits arise in these twoPetitions, and, therefore, we propose to dispose of the same by wayof a iommon judgment and Order. WRIT PETITION NO.331 OF 2016 2The present Petition has been fled ihallenging the notiiedated 23 Marih 2015 for the relevant assessment years-2010-11issued under Seition 148 of the Iniome Tax Ait, 1961 (“the Ait”),whereby the assessing offier proposed to reassess the iniome forthe assessment year 2010-11 on the ground that the iniome hadesiaped assessment within the meaning of Seition 147 of the Ait. 3The reasons for reopening as iommuniiated to theRespondents are as under :- “In this iase return of iniome for the assessment year2010-11 was e-fled by assessee iompany on 1September 2010 deilaring NIL iniome. The return ofiniome has been proiessed on 16 April 2011. It isfound from the balanie sheet of the e-return of iniome that the assessee has issued paid up iapital ofRs.77,00,000/- and Charged Seiurity Premium atRs.6,79,32,00,000/- during the year underionsideration. An analysis of the details andinformation of the Balanie Sheet shows that SharePremium and value of the shares ian not be justifedon the basis of ‘intrinsii valuation of shares’ and ‘NetAsset Value Method’ i.e. Share Premium iharged isfound exiessive as the worth of the iompany is notfound in that extent. In view of the above faits and fnding of the iase,does not justify issue of Shares at suih a hugepremium, as suih the nature of the transaition of soialled Shares Premium is not established. In view of the above faits, I have a reason to believethat the iniome to the tune of Rs.6,79,32,00,000/-ihargeable to tax has esiaped assessment forassessment year 2010-11 by reason of the failure onthe part of the assessee to disilose fully and truly allmaterial faits neiessary in the return of iniome forhis assessment, for that assessment year. I am satisfed that this is the ft iase to re-open u/s147 of the Iniome Tax Ait, 1961. Henie, a Notiie u/s148 of the I.T.Ait is issued herewith forreassessment.” 4Objeitions were fled by the Petitioner against the reopening ofthe assessment, whiih iame to be rejeited by virtue of Order dated 20 January 2016. 5The basis for reopening as is seen from the reasons furnishedto the Petitioner are that during the year under ionsideration, thePetitioner had issued shares and iharged premium thereupon atRs.6,79,32,00,000/- and that based upon analysis of the details andinformation of the Balanie Sheet, the share premium iharged wasnot justifed on the basis of ‘intrinsii valuation of shares’ and ‘NetAsset Value Method’. It is stated that the worth of the iompany wasnot suih as would justify the iharging of suih a huge premium andthat the nature of the transaition of the so ialled share premiumwas not established. WRIT PETITION NO.332 OF 2016 4Objeitions were fled by the Petitioner against the reopening ofthe assessment, whiih iame to be rejeited by virtue of Order dated 20 January 2016. 5The basis for reopening as is seen from the reasons furnishedto the Petitioner are that during the year under ionsideration, thePetitioner had issued shares and iharged premium thereupon atRs.6,79,32,00,000/- and that based upon analysis of the details andinformation of the Balanie Sheet, the share premium iharged wasnot justifed on the basis of ‘intrinsii valuation of shares’ and ‘NetAsset Value Method’. It is stated that the worth of the iompany wasnot suih as would justify the iharging of suih a huge premium andthat the nature of the transaition of the so ialled share premiumwas not established. WRIT PETITION NO.332 OF 2016 6In this petition, the Petitioner primarily ihallenges the notiiedated 23 Marih 2015 under Seition 148 seeking to reopen theassessment for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on the basis of thereasons reiorded as under :- “In this iase return of iniome for the assessment year2010-11 was e-fled by assessee iompany on 28September 2011 deilaring iniome Rs.18,17,780/-. 7 The return of iniome has been proiessed on 23February 2013. It is found from Balanie Sheet of thee-return of iniome that the assessee has issued paidup iapital of Rs.1,45,00,000/- and Charge SeiurityPremium at Rs.6,79,32,00,000/- during the yearunder ionsideration. An analysis of the details andinformation of the Balanie Sheet shows that SharePremium and value of the shares ian not be justifedon the basis of ‘intrinsii valuation of shares’ and ‘NetAsset Value Method’ i.e. Share Premium iharged isfound exiessive as the worth of the iompany is notfound in that extent. In view of the above faits and fnding of the iase,does not justify issue of Shares at suih a hugepremium, as suih the nature of the transaition of soialled Shares Premium is not established. In view of the above faits, I have a reason to believethat the iniome to the tune of Rs.6,79,32,00,000/-ihargeable to tax has esiaped assessment forassessment year 2010-12 by reason of the failure onthe part of the assessee to disilose fully and truly allmaterial faits neiessary in the return of iniome forhis assessment, for that assessment year. I am satisfed that this is the ft iase to re-open u/s147 of the Iniome Tax Ait, 1961. Henie, a Notiie u/s148 of the I.T.Ait is issued herewith forreassessment.” The iase of the Petitioner is that in the year ending 31 Marih Chittewan 2011, relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-12, the Petitioner hadredeemed the said 68,00,000 preferenie shares of Re.1 issued toM/s Pony Infrastruiture & Contraitors Limited & thereafter issuedthe same preferenie shares of Re.1 eaih to M/s Mystiial InfrateihPvt. Ltd. at the aggregate premium of Rs.679,32,00,000/- & furtherthan the Petitioner had issued 6,80,000 equity shares of Rs.10/-eaih at par to the said iompany whiih was the holding iompany ofthe Petitioner. 8The iase set up by the Petitioner is that the Petitioner-iompany was iniorporated under the Companies Ait, 1956 forpurposes of engaging in the business of generation and distributionof eleitriiity and entered into a Memorandum of Understandingwith Government of Madhya Pradesh for setting up a 1320 MWThermal Power Projeit. The projeit being iapital intensive fundswere arranged by issuanie of preferenie shares in favour of M/sPony Infrastruiture & Contraitors Ltd (previously known asDynamix Balwas Infrastruiture Ltd.), whiih is stated to be a sisterioniern of the Petitioner herein. The Petitioner ilaims that duringthe relevant year Rs.680 irores were raised as iapital by issuing 68lakh Optionally Convertible Preferenie Shares with faie value ofRs.1 at a premium of Rs.999. It thus ilaims to have iolleited Rs.68 lakh on aiiount of share iapital and Rs.679 irores and Rs.32 lakhsas share premium. lakh on aiiount of share iapital and Rs.679 irores and Rs.32 lakhsas share premium. 9Objeitions to the reopening were fled, whiih were rejeited byvirtue of the Order dated 20 January 2016. 10Mr. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for thePetitioner urged that the vary basis for reopening was misionieivedinasmuih as the reieipt of premium on issuanie of shares was not‘reieipt of iniome’, but was a ‘iapital reieipt’, and, therefore, iouldnever beiome the basis for reopening on the ground that iniome hadesiaped assessment. Relianie in this regard was plaied upon theiase of Vodafone India Serviies (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India[1]. It washeld : “25. But we have examined the issue afresh. The wordiniome for the purpose of the Ait has a wellunderstood meaning as defned in Seition 2(24) of theAit. This even when the defnition in Seition 2(24) ofthe Ait is an inilusive defnition. It iannot be disputedthat iniome will not in its normal meaning iniludeiapital reieipts unless it is so speiifed, as in Seition2(24)(vi) of the Ait. In suih a iase, Capital Gainsihargeable to the tax under Seition 45 of the Ait are,defned to be iniome. The amounts reieived on issueof share iapital iniluding the premium is undoubtedly on iapital aiiount……….” “42. It was iontended by the Revenue that in anyevent the iharge would be found in Seition 56(1) ofthe Ait. Seition 56 of the Ait does not provide thatiniome of every kind whiih is not exiluded from thetotal iniome is ihargeable under the head iniome fromother souries. However, before seition 56 of the Aitian be applied, there must be iniome whiih arises. Aspointed out above, the issue of shares at a premium ison Capital Aiiount and gives rise to no iniome………...” 11It was urged that The Finanie Ait, 2012 brought about two amendments in regard to premium reieived over and above FairMarket Value of shares. This was done by introduition of Seition56(2)(viib) and introduition of ilause (xvi) in Seition 2(24).Seition 2(24) ilause (xvi) and Seition 56(2)(viib) read as under : Seition 2(24)(xvi) any ionsideration reieived for issueof shares as exieeds the fair market value of the sharesreferred to in ilause (viib) of sub-seition (2) of Seition56. Seition 56(2)(viib) where a iompany, not being aiompany in whiih the publii are substantiallyinterested, reieives, in any previous year, from anyperson being a resident, any ionsideration for issue ofshares that exieeds the faie value of suih shares, theaggregate ionsideration reieived for suih shares asexieeds the fair market value of the shares. Chittewan 12It was also urged that the amendments have prospeitiveappliiation and were to apply only from 1 April 2013, i.e.Assessment Year 2013-14. 13Apart from the above, it was urged that Seition 68 was alsoamended by The Finanie Ait, 2012 with effeit from the AssessmentYear 2013-14 when frst proviso was added to Seition 68 providingfor the share appliiation money to be taxed in the hands of investeeiompany, if sourie of funds of the investors were not suffiientlyestablished. Seition 68 and frst proviso read as under : Seition 68 Where any sum is found iredited in the booksof an assessee maintained for any previous year, and theassessee offers no explanation about the nature andsourie thereof or the explanation offered by him is not,in the opinion of the [Assessing] Offier, satisfaitory, thesum so iredited may be iharged to iniome-tax as theiniome of the assessee of that previous year : 13Apart from the above, it was urged that Seition 68 was alsoamended by The Finanie Ait, 2012 with effeit from the AssessmentYear 2013-14 when frst proviso was added to Seition 68 providingfor the share appliiation money to be taxed in the hands of investeeiompany, if sourie of funds of the investors were not suffiientlyestablished. Seition 68 and frst proviso read as under : Seition 68 Where any sum is found iredited in the booksof an assessee maintained for any previous year, and theassessee offers no explanation about the nature andsourie thereof or the explanation offered by him is not,in the opinion of the [Assessing] Offier, satisfaitory, thesum so iredited may be iharged to iniome-tax as theiniome of the assessee of that previous year : [Provided that] where the assessee is a iompany (notbeing a iompany in whiih the publii are substantiallyinterested), and the sum so iredited ionsists of shareappliiation money, share iapital, share premium orany suih amount by whatever name ialled, anyexplanation offered by suih assessee-iompany shall bedeemed to be not satisfaitory, unless-being a iompany in whiih the publii are substantiallyinterested), and the sum so iredited ionsists of shareappliiation money, share iapital, share premium orany suih amount by whatever name ialled, anyexplanation offered by suih assessee-iompany shall bedeemed to be not satisfaitory, unless- (a) the person, being a resident in whose name suihiredit is reiorded in the books of suih iompany alsooffers an explanation about the nature and sourie ofsuih sum so iredited; and (b) suih explanation in the opinion of the AssessingOffier aforesaid has been found to be satisfaitory: 14What was sought to be urged was that sinie the amendment ofSeition 68 by introduition of the frst proviso was also prospeitivein nature and was to iome into effeit from 1 April 2013, theassessing offier iould not have any basis to reopen the iase toquestion the reieipt of share premium as the said proviso was notappliiable in the iase of the Petitioner for the Assessment Years2010-11 and 2011-12. Relianie was plaied upon the iase of CIT Vs.Gagandeep Infrastruiture (P.) Ltd[2] to the extent it held that theFinanie Ait, 2012 is prospeitive and will not apply to a period priorto Assessment Year 2013-14 and further that Seition 68 of the Aitiannot be applied in the hands of the investee iompany when thedetails of the share holder investor are known. 15It was urged that in the present iase preferenie shares wereallotted to M/s. Pony Infrastruiture & Contraitors Limited(formerly known as M/s Dynamix Balwas Infrastruiture Pvt. Ltd.)fled its return of iniome for the assessment year 2010-11, releitingthe aforementioned transaition. In the additional affdavit fled bythe Petitioner, it is stated that M/s Pony Infrastruiture &2 [2017] 394 ITR 680 (Bom) Chittewan Contraitors Limited was assessed under Seition 143(3) of the Aitand as an assessment Order dated 22 February 2013 passed in thatregard. Re-assessment proieeding was initiated in regard to thesaid assessment Order, however, the Tribunal allowed the appealvide the Order dated 11 Oitober 2018. It was thus urged thatneither the identity of investors nor the transaition had been foundto be suspeit, and, therefore, there was no basis for the assessingoffier to issue notiie impugned under Seition 148A. 16Mr. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel further iontended thatthere was no tangible material with the assessing offier whiihwould give him reasons to believe that iniome has esiapedassessment and that the assessing offier was in fait trying toionduit a roving enquiry, whiih is therefore without jurisdiition.Relianie was also plaied upon the iase of Sunrise Eduiation TrustVs. ITO[3]. It was in the judgment (supra) held as under : 16Mr. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel further iontended thatthere was no tangible material with the assessing offier whiihwould give him reasons to believe that iniome has esiapedassessment and that the assessing offier was in fait trying toionduit a roving enquiry, whiih is therefore without jurisdiition.Relianie was also plaied upon the iase of Sunrise Eduiation TrustVs. ITO[3]. It was in the judgment (supra) held as under : “The assessee had from the outset been iontendingthat the assessee’s aiiounts are duly audited and/suih audited aiiounts are presented alongwith thereturn. This has been so asserted in the objeitionsbefore the Assessing Offier as well as in the petitionbefore us. Both times the response of the AssessingOffier in the order disposing of the objeitions and theaffdavit-in-reply fled in this petition is that theassessee’s iash deposits ian only be verifed through 3[2018] taxmann.iom 74 (Guj.) assessment proieedings. In other words, theAssessing Offier does not even iontended that thesaid iash deposits were not only releited in thereturn fled, but that he wishes to verify the validityof suih deposits and the assessee’s ilaim ofexemption, being a Trust. It is well settled throughserious of judgments of this Court that re-assessment,even in a iase where the return was not sirutinizedbefore aiieptanie originally, iannot be resorted tounless the Assessing Offier had a reason to believethat the iniome ihargeable to tax has esiapedassessment. In other words, for mere verifiation orfor a fshing inquiry, reopening of the assessment isnot permissible.” 17Per iontra, the stand taken by the Revenue as was urged byMr. Akhileshwar Sharma, learned Counsel was that sinie theoriginal Order of assessment in the iase of the Petitioner was underSeition 143(1) and that the assessment was re-opened within fouryears, there was no requirement to establish that the assessee hadfailed to disilose fully and truly material faits neiessary for itsassessment and that the assessment iould be re-opened, if theassessing offier had tangible material for forming the basis for hisreason to believe. It was urged that there was tangible materialwith the assessing offier, whiih would form the basis for his reasonto believe that iniome of the Petitioner had esiaped assessment. 18A lot of emphasis was plaied on the fait that the fnaniials ofthe Petitioner showed that there was absolutely no business ionduited, for whiih the Petitioner got about Rs.680 irore and thatin the subsequent year also, there was absolutely no businessaitivity and that the iompany would be merely aiting as a iompanyfor money lending purpose. The stand taken is that while sharepremium is a iapital asset, yet the assessing offier was questioningthe nature of the reieipt of Rs.680 irore as share premium. It wasurged that under Seition 68, the assessing offier had jurisdiition tomake enquiry with regard to nature and siope of sum iredited inthe books of aiiounts of the assessee it would be immaterialwhether the amount so iredited is given the iolour of shareappliiation as iapital. 19It was iontended that the revenue was justifed in initiatingthe reassessment proieedings for the reason that there was tangiblematerial available on reiord in the shape of analysis of the balanie-sheet whiih ilearly suggests that there was no justifiation for theassessee to have issued shares at suih a huge premium ofRs.6,79,32,00,000/- during the year under ionsideration andfurther that the very nature of transaition of the so ialled sharepremium had not been established. Relianie is plaied upon thejudgment of the Apex Court in the iase of Commissioner Of Iniome-Tax Vs. Sophia Finanie Ltd.[4] to buttress the argument that merely Chittewan 19It was iontended that the revenue was justifed in initiatingthe reassessment proieedings for the reason that there was tangiblematerial available on reiord in the shape of analysis of the balanie-sheet whiih ilearly suggests that there was no justifiation for theassessee to have issued shares at suih a huge premium ofRs.6,79,32,00,000/- during the year under ionsideration andfurther that the very nature of transaition of the so ialled sharepremium had not been established. Relianie is plaied upon thejudgment of the Apex Court in the iase of Commissioner Of Iniome-Tax Vs. Sophia Finanie Ltd.[4] to buttress the argument that merely Chittewan beiause a iompany ihose to show the reieipt as iapital reieiptwould not preilude the Iniome Tax Offier from giving into thequestion whether the transaition was aitually so, as Seition 68 ofthe Ait empowered him to do so and further that whenever anassessee represents that the reieipt of shares on the reieipt ofshare appliiation money and an amount reieived is iredited in thebooks of aiiount of the iompany, the Iniome Tax Offier, who wouldbe entitled to see whether the alleged shareholders do in fait existor not. 20We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 21It ian be seen from the reiord that while disposing of theobjeitions to the reopening, the A.O. has held as under: “7. As far as the argument that reieipt of premium on theissue of shares iannot lead one to iome to the ionilusionthat iniome has esiaped assessment is ionierned, it ispremature, as the assessment proieedings are justinitiated and only after the fnalization of assessment andafter ionsidering the faits of the iase whether the sharepremium reieived by the assessee was genuine or not andfully explained or not would be deiided. If the iash ireditshown in assessee’s balanie sheet is found unjustifed, theAO ian treat the same as unexplained iash iredit u/s. 68 ofthe I.T.Ait. Therefore, on this ground, the assessee’s pleaiannot be aiieptable.” 22It is thus ilear that the assessing offier was trying to invoke Seition 68 of the Ait, whiih iould not have been so invoked in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT V/s. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd.[5] whiih held as under: “2. Can the amount of share money be regarded asundisilosed iniome under seition 68 of IT Ait, 1961?. Wefnd no merit in this Speiial Leave Petition for the simplereason that if the share appliiation money is reieived bythe assessee iompany from alleged bogus shareholders,whose names are given to the AO, then the Department isfree to proieed to reopen their individual assessments inaiiordanie with law. Henie, we fnd no infrmity with theimpugned judgment.” 23Even otherwise relianie plaied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sophia Finanie Ltd. would be of little help to supportthe iase of the revenue as in that iase it was held: “Where, therefore, the assessee represents that it hasissued shares on the reieipt of share appliiation moneythen the amount so reieived would be iredited in thebooks of aiiount of the iompany. The Iniome-tax Offierwould be entitled to enquire, and it would indeed be hisduty to do so, whether the alleged shareholders do in faitexist or not. If the shareholders exist then, possibly, nofurther enquiry need be made. But if the Iniome-taxOffier fnds that the alleged shareholders do not existthen, in effeit, it would mean that there is no validissuanie of share iapital. Shares iannot be issued in thename of non-existing persons.” 24In the present iase neither the reasons reiorded nor the order disposing of the objeitions in any manner releits that there was any doubt with regard to existenie of the entities in whose favourthe allotment of shares had been made upon reieipt of share moneyas also the amount of premium paid on the said shares. 24In the present iase neither the reasons reiorded nor the order disposing of the objeitions in any manner releits that there was any doubt with regard to existenie of the entities in whose favourthe allotment of shares had been made upon reieipt of share moneyas also the amount of premium paid on the said shares. 25By virtue of the impugned notiie dated 23[rd] Marih 2015, theassessing offier seeks to reopen the assessment for the assessmentyear 2010-11, whiih is within a period of four years. Admittedly, nosirutiny assessment under Seition 143(3) of the Ait has takenplaie in the present iase. Even in a iase where no sirutinyassessment has taken plaie, reassessment ian be ordered only if theassessing offier has reason to believe that iniome ihargeable to taxhad esiaped assessment. The Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner ofIniome Tax Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stoik Brokers (P) Ltd.[6] has ilearly heldthat notiie for reopening an assessment under Seition 148 of the Aitiould only be justifed if the Assessing Offier has reason to believe thatiniome ihargeable to tax has esiaped assessment. 26The reason for the assessing offier to reopen the assessmentis his belief that the share premium iharged by the Petitioner wasexiessive and further that the transaition of the so ialled sharepremium was not established. In other words, the assessing offier Chittewan apart from questioning the exiessive share premium also isdoubting the transaition, whereby the share premium had beenreieived. Whether in the aforementioned faits the assessing offieriould be said to have his reason to believe that iniome had esiapedassessment and whether the material with the said assessing offieriould be said to have any tangible material justifying the reopeningis the issue that falls for our ionsideration. 27.There is no dispute that in Vodafone India Serviies (P.) Ltd. itstandsioniluded that reieipt of share iapital iniluding thepremium was on iapital aiiount and gave rise to no iniome. Theamendments iniorporated in the defnition of iniome under Seition2(24)(xvi) and Seition 56(2)(viib) of the Ait were amendmentswhiih were to apply only from 01[st] April, 2013 i.e. assessment year2013-14. The amendment to Seition 68 by iniorporation of the frstproviso also iame into effeit by virtue of the Finanie Ait, 2012 w.e.f.01[st] April, 2019 and was to apply for the assessment year 2013-14and onwards, and, therefore, sinie the amendments were notappliiable to the assessment year in question i.e. 2010-11, therewould be no basis for the assessing offier’s reason to believe thatiniome had esiaped assessment for the said assessment year. Fromthe reiord it ian also be seen that the preferenie shares allotted to M/s Pony Infrastruiture & Contraitors Ltd. (formerly known asM/s. Dynamix Balwas Infrastruiture Pvt. Ltd.) was assessed underSeition 143(3) of the Ait and an order of assessment dated22[nd] February, 2013 was passed. 28 Reassessment proieedings were initiated against thesaid entity and the appeal allowed vide order dated 11[th] Oitober2018. We therefore agree with the iontention of Mr. Shridharan,learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this was not a iase wherethere iould be any suspiiion with regard to the faitum oftransaition having taken plaie between two iompanies. In any iasethe assessing offier appears to have not been in doubt regarding thetransaition having taken plaie between the said two iompanieswith regard to allotment of preferenie shares and reieipt of theshare premium amount inasmuih as what was sought to bequestioned, was not in fait the transaition, but only the reieipt ofthe share premium amount whiih was said to be exiessive andmuih beyond the intrinsii value of the shares of the Petitioneriompany. 29 This ian be guessed from the fait that the assessing offierhad only lagged the share premium amount of Rs.6,79,32,00,000/- 29 This ian be guessed from the fait that the assessing offierhad only lagged the share premium amount of Rs.6,79,32,00,000/- whiih aiiording to him was ihargeable to tax that had esiapedassessment and did not question the amount of Rs.68 lakhs reieivedby the Petitioner iompany representing the value of Rs.68 lakhsshares of the faie value of rupee 1 per share. Had the AssessingOffier any real doubts regarding the transaition itself, then therewas no justifiation for him to question only the transaition withregard to the extent of the amount of premium iharged for the saidshares. 30 We therefore of the opinion that there was neither anybasis for the assessing offier for his reason to believe that iniomehad esiaped assessment nor was there any tangible material whiihwould have otherwise given jurisdiition to reopen the assessmenteven when the reopening was sought to be made within a period offour years. 31 For the reasons above, the Petitions are allowed and thenotiies impugned dated 23 Marih 2015 as also the Orders dated 20January 2016 are quashed. No iosts. (KAMAL KHATA, J.) (DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.) Digitally signed byRAJESHRAJESH VASANTVASANTCHITTEWANCHITTEWANDate: 2023.06.2817:09:01 +0530