C/Sca/19454/2019 Order Dated: 02/02/2021 v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19454 of 2019 ================================================================KAYATHWAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. VersusINCOME TAX OFFICER ================================================================ Appearance:MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Date : 02/02/2021 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA) 1. By filing this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, the writ applicant, seeks to challenge the Notice dated28.03.2019, issued by the respondent under Section of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short), seeking to reopen the writapplicant’s income tax assessment for the A.Y. 2012-13.of India, the writ applicant, seeks to challenge the Notice dated28.03.2019, issued by the respondent under Section of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short), seeking to reopen the writapplicant’s income tax assessment for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The assessee being a Private Limited Company filed its return ofincome on 24.09.2012, declaring total income of Rs.88,770/- andcapital gain of Rs.2,73,431/-. Initially the return was processedunder Section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter, the case wasselected for scrutiny assessment. During scrutiny proceedings, thedetails called for were placed on record. The Assessing Officer hadasked the details regarding unsecured loan taken by the assesseeduring the year under consideration. The assessee furnished detailsas called for. The Assessing Officer after perusing the details soincome on 24.09.2012, declaring total income of Rs.88,770/- andcapital gain of Rs.2,73,431/-. Initially the return was processedunder Section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter, the case wasselected for scrutiny assessment. During scrutiny proceedings, thedetails called for were placed on record. The Assessing Officer hadasked the details regarding unsecured loan taken by the assesseeduring the year under consideration. The assessee furnished detailsas called for. The Assessing Officer after perusing the details so furnished by the assessee, passed an order dated 08.10.2014 underSection 143(3) of the Act by making addition and final determinedthe income at Rs.3,62,200/-. 3. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147of the Act by issuing impugned notice dated 28.03.2019 underSection 148 of the Act. Pursuant to the notice, the assessee filedreturn of income on 16.04.2019 and vide letter dated 17.04.2019,requested the revenue to supply copy of reasons for reopening. On16.05.2019, the respondent supplied the copy of reasons, whichreads thus:-of the Act by issuing impugned notice dated 28.03.2019 underSection 148 of the Act. Pursuant to the notice, the assessee filedreturn of income on 16.04.2019 and vide letter dated 17.04.2019,requested the revenue to supply copy of reasons for reopening. On16.05.2019, the respondent supplied the copy of reasons, whichreads thus:- Reasons recorded : “2. The assessee company filed its return of income forthe A.Y. 2012-13 on 24.09.2012 declaring total incomeat Rs.3,62,200/Assessment in the case of the assesseewas completed w/s 143(3) on 31.03.2015 by acceptingReturned Income Reasons recorded : “2. The assessee company filed its return of income forthe A.Y. 2012-13 on 24.09.2012 declaring total incomeat Rs.3,62,200/Assessment in the case of the assesseewas completed w/s 143(3) on 31.03.2015 by acceptingReturned Income 2.1 As per available information received in this officefrom O/o the DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai throughproper channel, a search and seizure action was carriedout by the Investigation wing, Mumbai in the case of ShriPravin kumar Jain and his group based in Mumbai on01.10.2013. The search action resulted into collection ofevidences and other findings which conclusively provedthat the assessee through a web of concerns run andoperated by him, is engaged in providingaccommodation entries of various nature like bogusunsecured loans, bogus share application and bogussales (purchases for the beneficiaries) etc. During the course of the search various premises whichwere shown by the assessee group to be the place ofoperations and registered addresses as per the IncomeTax Returns, MCA website and Bank documents werecovered. However, it was found that + entities were non-existing at these addresses and no genuine businesswas being carried out at any of these premises: Pre-search enquiries had revealed that the variouspersons shown to be the directors/proprietors of differentconcerns were non-existent on the given addresses.However, in . certain cases the directors’ addresseswere located and they were covered in the action w/s132 of the 1 T Act, 1961. During the course of thestatements recorded u/s 132(4V/131 of the IT Act. 1961these directors /proprietors admitted that they weremerely dummy directors and used to sign differentpapers for nominal consideration given by Shri PravinKumar Jain. They were unaware of the place ofoperations, books of accounts and the businesses beingcarried out by the concerns where they weredirectors/proprietors. After perusal of such documents/statement, it was foundthat Praveen Jain himself is a director in few concernsonly.However,throughvariousdummydirectors/proprietors, he controls, operates, andmanages a large no of concerns. All Such concerns arenot carrying out any genuine business. They do not haveany physical stock of goods, which they claimed to bedealing in. All such concerns have no employed personsexcept the few common accountantswho manageaccounts and banking transactions of all such concernsand all such concerns are indulged in the activity ofprovidingaccommodationentriesonly. 2.2 In the course of search/survey proceedings, Sh.Pravin Kumar Jain categorically admitted in hisstatement that he was indulged in providing ofaccommodation entries to the beneficiaries according totheir need of share application/share capital money/loan/purchase and sale bills etc. He further named thecompanies/firms on his own of or through other brokersthrough which heis providing accommodation entries toits clients in lieu of some commission. In this regard hecategorically admitted that he is in the business of givingaccommodation entries which are routed through thecompanies under his control. All the companies eitherowned by him or directly/indirectly under his control arepaper companies with no real business transactions. Inmost of the cases various brokers who operate in thefield of providing accommodation entries approach himwhen they want a certain type of accommodation entrylike bogus unsecured loan,bogus LTCG etc. 2.3 From the above detailed investigation based ondocumentary evidences and admission of the entryprovider and associated persons, it is clear that Sh.Pravin Kumar Jain was indulged in providing ofaccommodation entries through various concerns asidentified by the investigation wing to the variousbeneficiaries according to their need of shareapplication/share capital money/loan/purchase and salebills etc. As per details available, it is found that theassessee has taken accommodation entry of unsecuredloan Rs. 15,00,000/from M/s Ramdev Share & SecuritiesPvt Limited, which is paper concern managed andcontrolled by entry operator i.e Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. 3, The information/details so available are perused. Onperusal of information, it is found that the assessee hastaken unsecured loan of Rs. 15,00,000/from M/sRamdev Share &Securities one of the bogus concernand claimed bogus expenditure of Rs.1,03,932/-. 4, In view of above facts, it is clear that this amount ofunsecured loan shown to be takenof Rs. 15,00,000/- bythe assessee is nothing but its unaccounted incomecredited in its books of account which comes in theambit of Section 68 of the IT Act and also interestexpenditure ofRs.1,03,903,932/- is not allowableexpenditure, 5. The above facts leads to the belief that there is adefault on the part of the assessee to disclose full andtruly all material facts in respect of its assessment duringi.e year under consideration and, therefore, I havereason to believe that the income to the extent ofRs.16,03,932/- has escaped assessment within themeaning of Explanation 2(c) of Section 147 ofthe .T.Act, for which the case of the assessee for the A.Y.2012-13 needs to be reopened w/s 147 of the IT. Act. 6. Applicability of provisions of Section 147/151 tothe facts of the case. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case theassessee has filed return of income for the year andassessment has been completed w/s 143(3) of the ITAct on 08.10.2014. Since 4 year has from the end of therelevant assessment year has expired in this case, therequirements to initiate proceedings w/s 147 of the Actare reason to believe that Income for the year underconsideration has escaped assessment because offailure on the part of the assessee to disclose - fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment forthe year under consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that reasons to believethat Income has escaped assessment for the year underconsideration have been recorded above in paras 2 to 5.I have carefully gone through the records containing thesubmission made by the assessee in response ofvarious notices issued during the course of assessmentproceedings and noticed that the assessee has notfullyand truly disclosed the material facts necessary for hisassessment for the year under consideration. It is evident from the above facts that the assessee hadnot truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary forits assessment for the year under consideration therebynecessitating reopening u/s 147 of the IT Act. In this case more than four years have lapsed from theend of assessment year under consideration, Hencenecessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 has beenobtained separately from Principal Commissioner ofIncome-tax as per the provisions of Section 151 of theAct.” 4. The assessee raised objections vide its communication dated01.06.2019 and same came to be rejected by the revenue vide orderdated 23.04.2019.01.06.2019 and same came to be rejected by the revenue vide orderdated 23.04.2019. 5. Being aggrieved by the order disposal of the objections, against thenotice for reopening of the assessment, the writ applicant has comeup before this Court by filing the present writ applicant. notice for reopening of the assessment, the writ applicant has comeup before this Court by filing the present writ applicant. 4. The assessee raised objections vide its communication dated01.06.2019 and same came to be rejected by the revenue vide orderdated 23.04.2019.01.06.2019 and same came to be rejected by the revenue vide orderdated 23.04.2019. 5. Being aggrieved by the order disposal of the objections, against thenotice for reopening of the assessment, the writ applicant has comeup before this Court by filing the present writ applicant. notice for reopening of the assessment, the writ applicant has comeup before this Court by filing the present writ applicant. 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Tushar Hemani,assisted by Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh, the learned counsel appearing forassisted by Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mrs. Kalpana Raval, the learned StandingCounsel assisted by Mr. Nikunt Raval, the learned advocateappearing for the revenue. 7. Assailing the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, Mr.Tushar Hemani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writapplicant, urged the following submissions :Tushar Hemani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writapplicant, urged the following submissions : (a)Impugned notice is absolutely bad in law and against the provisionof the statute, more particularly, under Section 147 of the Act. of the statute, more particularly, under Section 147 of the Act. (b)The impugned notice has been issued on 28.03.2019 in relation tothe AY 2012-13, which is clearly beyond the period of 4 yearsfrom the end of relevant year and as such, in absence of any failureon the part of the writ applicant, disclosed fully and truly allmaterial facts, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AssessingOfficer under Section 147 is invalid. In this context, it wassubmitted that the assessment for the year under consideration wasframed under Section 143 of the Act and during the assessmentproceedings, the Assessing Officer had called for various detailsincluding the details pertaining to unsecured loans and same wasfurnished vide letter dated 15.4.2014 and after perusing the details,the Assessing Officer conclusively did not make any addition inrespect of unsecured loan received from M/s. Ramdev Shares andSecurities Pvt. Ltd. It is therefore submitted that it is evident that atthe time of filing the return of income and during the course ofassessment proceedings, all the material facts having been trulyand fully disclosed by the assessee and therefore, the conditionprecedent for exercise of power under Section 147 after expiry ofperiod of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year arethe AY 2012-13, which is clearly beyond the period of 4 yearsfrom the end of relevant year and as such, in absence of any failureon the part of the writ applicant, disclosed fully and truly allmaterial facts, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AssessingOfficer under Section 147 is invalid. In this context, it wassubmitted that the assessment for the year under consideration wasframed under Section 143 of the Act and during the assessmentproceedings, the Assessing Officer had called for various detailsincluding the details pertaining to unsecured loans and same wasfurnished vide letter dated 15.4.2014 and after perusing the details,the Assessing Officer conclusively did not make any addition inrespect of unsecured loan received from M/s. Ramdev Shares andSecurities Pvt. Ltd. It is therefore submitted that it is evident that atthe time of filing the return of income and during the course ofassessment proceedings, all the material facts having been trulyand fully disclosed by the assessee and therefore, the conditionprecedent for exercise of power under Section 147 after expiry ofperiod of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year are clearly not satisfied and the issuance of notice after expiry ofperiod of 4 years is without authority of law.period of 4 years is without authority of law. clearly not satisfied and the issuance of notice after expiry ofperiod of 4 years is without authority of law.period of 4 years is without authority of law. (c)It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings,the Assessing Officer had examined the alleged transaction andinterest expenses accrued thereon and at relevant time, thedepartment was in possession of the information in the form ofevidences collected during the course of search carried out in thecase of Shri Pravin Jain on 01.10.2013.Thus, at the relevant time,the Assessing Officer thought not fit to make any addition withrespect to unsecured loan. Therefore, the information as referred inthe reasons recorded cannot be termed as tangible material toreopen the concluded assessment. the Assessing Officer had examined the alleged transaction andinterest expenses accrued thereon and at relevant time, thedepartment was in possession of the information in the form ofevidences collected during the course of search carried out in thecase of Shri Pravin Jain on 01.10.2013.Thus, at the relevant time,the Assessing Officer thought not fit to make any addition withrespect to unsecured loan. Therefore, the information as referred inthe reasons recorded cannot be termed as tangible material toreopen the concluded assessment. (d)It was also submitted that during the course of scrutiny assessment,the Assessing Officer had gone into the issue and did not havemade any addition with respect to unsecured loan and interestthereon. Hence, the action on the part of the revenue to reopen theassessment is nothing but it is a change of opinion on the part ofthe Assessing Officer, which cannot be permitted in eye of law.the Assessing Officer had gone into the issue and did not havemade any addition with respect to unsecured loan and interestthereon. Hence, the action on the part of the revenue to reopen theassessment is nothing but it is a change of opinion on the part ofthe Assessing Officer, which cannot be permitted in eye of law. (e)Referring to reasons recorded, it was submitted that the respondenthas merely relied upon the information received from theinvestigating wing, which seems to be a vague as there is noreference of the assessee that Mr. Jain has provided theaccommodation entry to the writ applicant in the form of unsecuredloan. Under such circumstances, it was submitted that reopeningcannot be permitted for carrying out roving and/or fishing inquiryor investigation without there being a specific finding as toescapement of income.has merely relied upon the information received from theinvestigating wing, which seems to be a vague as there is noreference of the assessee that Mr. Jain has provided theaccommodation entry to the writ applicant in the form of unsecuredloan. Under such circumstances, it was submitted that reopeningcannot be permitted for carrying out roving and/or fishing inquiryor investigation without there being a specific finding as toescapement of income. (f) Lastly, it was submitted that the notice under Section 148 can beissued if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that incomechargeable to tax has escaped assessment, for which, the AssessingOfficer, at all applied his mind independently so as to reach aconclusion that income has escaped assessment. Thus, in thepresent case, the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings ofreopening merely based on borrowed satisfaction i.e. theinformation received from the concerned department.issued if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that incomechargeable to tax has escaped assessment, for which, the AssessingOfficer, at all applied his mind independently so as to reach aconclusion that income has escaped assessment. Thus, in thepresent case, the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings ofreopening merely based on borrowed satisfaction i.e. theinformation received from the concerned department. 8. In view of the aforesaid contentions, the learned Senior Counselappearing for the writ applicant submitted that the reopening of theassessment is without jurisdiction and hence the impugned noticedeserves to be quashed and set aside.appearing for the writ applicant submitted that the reopening of theassessment is without jurisdiction and hence the impugned noticedeserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel Mrs. Kalpana Raval,reiterated the stand adopted by the revenue in the affidavit in replyas well as in the order disposing of the objections, submitted thatthe action taken by the Assessing Officer is just, legal and properand does not warrant any interference. It was submitted that theassessee did not have disclosed true and correct details with regardto unsecured loan provided by M/s. Ramdev Shares and SecuritiesPvt. Ltd, the information received from the department was notavailable to the Assessing Officer at the time of originalassessment and therefore, Assessing Officer has duly recordedsatisfaction for the purpose of reopening the assessment which isbased upon the tangible material and prima-facie he came to theconclusion that transaction made by the assessee with M/s.Ramdev Shares and Securities Pvt. Ltd is nothing but anaccommodation entry provided by M/s. Ramdev Shares andSecurities Pvt. Ltd, which is paper concern, having no actualreiterated the stand adopted by the revenue in the affidavit in replyas well as in the order disposing of the objections, submitted thatthe action taken by the Assessing Officer is just, legal and properand does not warrant any interference. It was submitted that theassessee did not have disclosed true and correct details with regardto unsecured loan provided by M/s. Ramdev Shares and SecuritiesPvt. Ltd, the information received from the department was notavailable to the Assessing Officer at the time of originalassessment and therefore, Assessing Officer has duly recordedsatisfaction for the purpose of reopening the assessment which isbased upon the tangible material and prima-facie he came to theconclusion that transaction made by the assessee with M/s.Ramdev Shares and Securities Pvt. Ltd is nothing but anaccommodation entry provided by M/s. Ramdev Shares andSecurities Pvt. Ltd, which is paper concern, having no actual business and the amount of Rs.15 lakhs and interest expensesRs.1,03,932/- is liable to tax as escape assessment. 10. In view of the aforesaid submissions, Mrs. Kalpana Raval, learnedStanding Counsel submits that there being no merits in the writapplication, same deserves to be dismissed.Standing Counsel submits that there being no merits in the writapplication, same deserves to be dismissed. 11.Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties andhaving gone through the materials on record, the only question fallsfor our consideration is that whether the revenue is justified inreopening the assessment for the year under consideration. having gone through the materials on record, the only question fallsfor our consideration is that whether the revenue is justified inreopening the assessment for the year under consideration. 10. In view of the aforesaid submissions, Mrs. Kalpana Raval, learnedStanding Counsel submits that there being no merits in the writapplication, same deserves to be dismissed.Standing Counsel submits that there being no merits in the writapplication, same deserves to be dismissed. 11.Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties andhaving gone through the materials on record, the only question fallsfor our consideration is that whether the revenue is justified inreopening the assessment for the year under consideration. having gone through the materials on record, the only question fallsfor our consideration is that whether the revenue is justified inreopening the assessment for the year under consideration. 12. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by respectiveparties, it is relevant to refer the legal provisions. Section 147 ofthe Act deals with the income escape assessment. The section inter-alia provides that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe thatany income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for anyassessment year, he may subject to provisions of Sections 148 to153 of the Act, the assessment or reassessment, the incomechargeable to tax, however, it is subject to certain limitations. Thefirst proviso to Section provides that whether an assessment undersub-section (3) of Section 143 has been made for the relevantassessment year, no action shall be taken under Section 147 afterthe expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year.Unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment,failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section139 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts, necessary forhis assessment for that assessment year.parties, it is relevant to refer the legal provisions. Section 147 ofthe Act deals with the income escape assessment. The section inter-alia provides that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe thatany income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for anyassessment year, he may subject to provisions of Sections 148 to153 of the Act, the assessment or reassessment, the incomechargeable to tax, however, it is subject to certain limitations. Thefirst proviso to Section provides that whether an assessment undersub-section (3) of Section 143 has been made for the relevantassessment year, no action shall be taken under Section 147 afterthe expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year.Unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment,failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section139 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts, necessary forhis assessment for that assessment year. 13. The record indicates that the assessee had disclosed thetransactions of loan in their books of accounts and return oftransactions of loan in their books of accounts and return of income. It is also admitted facts that during the scrutiny assessmentproceedings, the assessee had furnished all the details as called forincluding bank statement of parties from whom loan was taken. Itis the case of the revenue that the information received from theconcerned, M/s. Ramdev Shares and Securities Pvt. Ltd, is papercompany, managed by Mr. Pravin Jain and he was found to be anaccommodation entry provider and the alleged transaction is bogustransaction and therefore, the amount of unsecured loan andinterest thereon is liable to tax and has escaped assessment. 13. The record indicates that the assessee had disclosed thetransactions of loan in their books of accounts and return oftransactions of loan in their books of accounts and return of income. It is also admitted facts that during the scrutiny assessmentproceedings, the assessee had furnished all the details as called forincluding bank statement of parties from whom loan was taken. Itis the case of the revenue that the information received from theconcerned, M/s. Ramdev Shares and Securities Pvt. Ltd, is papercompany, managed by Mr. Pravin Jain and he was found to be anaccommodation entry provider and the alleged transaction is bogustransaction and therefore, the amount of unsecured loan andinterest thereon is liable to tax and has escaped assessment. 14. After careful examination of the reasons recorded and the order ofdisposing of the objection, we find that on 08.10.2014, the scrutinyassessment was concluded. The search action carried out on01.10.2013 in the case of Mr. Pravinkumar Jain. In the reasonsrecorded, it is nowhere mention that on which date the informationwas received by the department. Thus, we are of the consideredview that the information as mentioned in the reasons recorded,cannot be termed as tangible material, as at the time of scrutinyassessment, it was very much available with the department. disposing of the objection, we find that on 08.10.2014, the scrutinyassessment was concluded. The search action carried out on01.10.2013 in the case of Mr. Pravinkumar Jain. In the reasonsrecorded, it is nowhere mention that on which date the informationwas received by the department. Thus, we are of the consideredview that the information as mentioned in the reasons recorded,cannot be termed as tangible material, as at the time of scrutinyassessment, it was very much available with the department. 15. In the present case, as noted above, the assessee vide letter dated15.04.2014 and 23.05.2014 had furnished all the details withrespect to loan transactions and further submitted theacknowledgment of return of income, bank statement of parties,from whom the loan was taken. Despite of the discloser of all thematerials, the Assessing Officer did not have made any addition inthe income It is a settled legal position that completed assessmentcannot be reopened unless Assessing Officer received freshtangible material subsequent to the framing of the assessment. Inthe present case, as we have held hereinabove, that the information15.04.2014 and 23.05.2014 had furnished all the details withrespect to loan transactions and further submitted theacknowledgment of return of income, bank statement of parties,from whom the loan was taken. Despite of the discloser of all thematerials, the Assessing Officer did not have made any addition inthe income It is a settled legal position that completed assessmentcannot be reopened unless Assessing Officer received freshtangible material subsequent to the framing of the assessment. Inthe present case, as we have held hereinabove, that the information is not a tangible material and therefore, in the opinion of this Court,the attempt on the part of the Assessing Officer to reopen theassessment is nothing but it is his change of opinion based on thesame facts., if it is so, then mere a change of opinion of theAssessing Officer, cannot be the ground for reopening ofassessment. is not a tangible material and therefore, in the opinion of this Court,the attempt on the part of the Assessing Officer to reopen theassessment is nothing but it is his change of opinion based on thesame facts., if it is so, then mere a change of opinion of theAssessing Officer, cannot be the ground for reopening ofassessment. 16. In the present case, admittedly, the reopening is beyond 4 yearsfrom the end of relevant assessment year. It is provided that wherean assessment under sub-section (3) of the Section 143 has beenmade for relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken underSection 147 after expiry of 4 years from, the end of relevantassessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escapedassessment . For such assessment year, by reason of the failure onthe part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 or inresponse to a notice issued under Section 148 or to disclose fullyand true material facts necessary for the assessment. from the end of relevant assessment year. It is provided that wherean assessment under sub-section (3) of the Section 143 has beenmade for relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken underSection 147 after expiry of 4 years from, the end of relevantassessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escapedassessment . For such assessment year, by reason of the failure onthe part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 or inresponse to a notice issued under Section 148 or to disclose fullyand true material facts necessary for the assessment. 17. On the facts of present case, we find that the assessee haddisclosed fully and truly material facts, with respect to loantransaction as well the interest paid on the loan. Admittedly, theloan was paid up by the assessee on 21.08.2014 with the interest,after deducting TDS thereon. The Assessing Officer at the time ofscrutiny assessment, accepted the transaction. Under thecircumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee had withheld theprimary material and assessee failed to disclose truly and fully allmaterial facts of the assessment. Thus, the conditions precedent forexercise of power under Section 147 after expiry of period of 4years of relevant assessment year are not satisfied, as a result, wehold that assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessingdisclosed fully and truly material facts, with respect to loantransaction as well the interest paid on the loan. Admittedly, theloan was paid up by the assessee on 21.08.2014 with the interest,after deducting TDS thereon. The Assessing Officer at the time ofscrutiny assessment, accepted the transaction. Under thecircumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee had withheld theprimary material and assessee failed to disclose truly and fully allmaterial facts of the assessment. Thus, the conditions precedent forexercise of power under Section 147 after expiry of period of 4years of relevant assessment year are not satisfied, as a result, wehold that assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer beyond a period of 4 years is invalid and withoutjurisdiction. Consequently, impugned notice dated 28.03.2019 ishereby quashed and set aside. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the writapplication is allowed. application is allowed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) P.S. JOSHI (ILESH J. VORA,J)