National Construction Co v. Oral Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2075 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA andHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA ========================================================== 1Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowedto see the judgment ?2To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copyof the judgment ?4Whether this case involves a substantial questionof law as to the interpretation of the Constitutionof India or any order made thereunder ? ========================================================== NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO Versus JT COMMR OF INCOME TAX JCIT OSD CIRCLE GANDHIDHAM ==========================================================Appearance:MR SN DIVATIA(1378) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MR NIKUNT RAVAL for MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Respondent(s) No. 1========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIAandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 06/09/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1.Heard learned advocate Mr. S.N. Divatia forthe petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval for Ms. Kalpana K. Raval for therespondent. 2.Having regard to the controversy involved inthis petition, with the consent of thelearned advocates for the respective parties,the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3.Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocateMr. Nikunt Raval waives service of notice ofrule on behalf of the respondent. 4.The petitioner has preferred this petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution ofunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “a) to issue a writ of certiorari orin the nature of certiorari or anyother appropriate writ, orders ordirections quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 31-03-2021 [Annexure-A] issued by theRespondent proposing to reopen thecompletedassessmentofthePetitioner for A.Y. 2014-15. (b) to issue a writ of certiorari orin the nature of certiorari or anyother appropriate writ, orders ordirections quashing and settingaside the impugned order dated20.12.2021 [Annexure-B) passed bytheRespondentrejectingtheobjections of the Petitioner andupholding the validity of theimpugned reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act for A.Y. 2014- 15. (c) to call for the records of theproceedings and look into them andbe pleased to issue a writ ofcertiorari or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction quashingthe impugned notice and order. (d) Pending the hearing and finaldisposal of this petition tomaintain status quo in the matterand ask the Respondent and itssubordinates not to take any actionor to do anything in furtherance andpursuance of this impugned notice. (e)To allow this Petition with cost. (f) To pass any further or otherorders as the Hon'ble Court may deemproper in the interest of justiceand in the circumstances of thecase.” 5.Brief facts of the case are that thepetitioner is a partnership firm dulypetitioner is a partnership firm duly constituted under Indian Partnership Act,1932 and is engaged in the business of MiningContract work involving hiring of Heavy Equipment and Machinery for excavating(including drilling in all kind of strataover burden), loading into tippers, transportation and unloading the excavated material and silt, dumping, dozing, scraping/removal of bands, Mining contractor andletting out of Dumpers/Tippers/excavators. 5.1) The petitioner had filed its original return of income for the AssessmentYear 2014-2015 on 16.09.2014 declaring lossof Rs.17,31,24,839/-. 5.2) The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny under CASS for 5.Brief facts of the case are that thepetitioner is a partnership firm dulypetitioner is a partnership firm duly constituted under Indian Partnership Act,1932 and is engaged in the business of MiningContract work involving hiring of Heavy Equipment and Machinery for excavating(including drilling in all kind of strataover burden), loading into tippers, transportation and unloading the excavated material and silt, dumping, dozing, scraping/removal of bands, Mining contractor andletting out of Dumpers/Tippers/excavators. 5.1) The petitioner had filed its original return of income for the AssessmentYear 2014-2015 on 16.09.2014 declaring lossof Rs.17,31,24,839/-. 5.2) The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny under CASS for verifying high ratio of refund andcertificate under section 197 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”). 5.3) It is the case of the petitionerthat the assessment proceedings took placebetween 20.08.2015 and onwards during whichthe respondent called for various details,explanations and evidence relating to theissues under scrutiny and other items as pernotices and order sheet entries. Thepetitioner in course of the assessmentproceedings furnished all details includingthe ledger account of partners. 5.4) The respondent completed the regularassessment under section 143(3) of the Act on26.10.2016 assessing the total loss of Rs.7,36,20,230/-aftermakingadditions/disallowancesaggregatingtoRs.9,95,04,613/-. 5.5) The respondent thereafter issued theimpugned notice on 31.03.2021 under section148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 proposing to re-assess the total income. 5.6) In response to the impugned notice the petitioner had uploaded return of incomeon 13.04.2021 with a copy of reply requestingto provide the copy of reasons recorded forreopening. 5.7) The respondent provided copy of reasons recorded on 15.5.2021. The reasonsrecorded by the Assessing Officer forreopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act read as under: “Based on your request, the reasonsrecorded are supplied as follows: 1. Brief Details of the Assessee:The assessee has filed its Return ofIncome for AY 2014-15 on 16.09.2014declaring total loss of Rs. 17,31,24,839/-. Subsequently, thecase was taken up for scrutinythrough CASS. Thereafter, theassessment was completed u/s. 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on26.10.2016determiningtotal assessed loss at Rs. 7,36,20,230/- 2. Brief details of informationcollected/received by the AO: Thisoffice is in receipt of informationwith the case type "High RiskCRIU/VRUInformation"onVerification Module of the InsightPortal of the Income Tax Department,uploadedbytheADIT(Inv.),Gandhidham. As per the information,Shri Khimji Harji Patel is a partnerof M/s National Construction Co. andhas made various debit and credittransactions with the assessee l.e.M/s National Construction Co. duringthe F.Y. 2013-14. Following bankaccounts is reported in the information: From the departmental inquiriesconducted by the O/o ADIT(Inv.).Gandhidham, it is gathered that theShri Khimji Harji Patel has failedto explain the credits and debits intheabovereferredaccount,therefore the transactions made byShri Khimji Harji Patel with M/s. National Construction Company remainunexplained. 3. Analysis of the Informationcollected/received: On perusal fromthe information received, thedetails of the credits and debitsmade by Shri Khimji Harji Patelthrough a/c no. 0411102000002738held with IDBI Limited, with M/s.National Construction Company istabulated hereunder. information: From the departmental inquiriesconducted by the O/o ADIT(Inv.).Gandhidham, it is gathered that theShri Khimji Harji Patel has failedto explain the credits and debits intheabovereferredaccount,therefore the transactions made byShri Khimji Harji Patel with M/s. National Construction Company remainunexplained. 3. Analysis of the Informationcollected/received: On perusal fromthe information received, thedetails of the credits and debitsmade by Shri Khimji Harji Patelthrough a/c no. 0411102000002738held with IDBI Limited, with M/s.National Construction Company istabulated hereunder. Also, it is noted that from thesearch of ITD/ITBA database and e-filing account, it is found thatShri Khimji Harji Patel has filedhis ITR only till A.Y. 2013-14. Theassessee has not filed any returnafter A.Y. 2013-14. The returndetails of Shri Khimjl Harji BhaiPatel are tabulated below: During the enquiry process by theInvestigation Wing, though summonswere issued to Shri Khimji HarjiPatel however he did not attend orreply to the summons issued by theADIT(Inv.),Gandhidham.Severalattempts to trace him proved futile.As Shri Khimji Harji Patel is thepartner in National ConstructionCompany, through the e- filing theaddress of the National ConstructionCompany was found i.e. 1 Floor, Harsh Plaza, College Road, MainRoad, Bhuj-Kutch. On enquiry, it wasfound that the National ConstructionCompany is closed since a long timeand nobody was there to receive thissummon Therefore, in absence of Copy ofcomputation of Income and Books ofaccounts and supporting documents,the credits and debits in the bankaccount of Shri Khimji Har BhaiPatel are treated as unexplainedcredits and debits. It is noted that in the bankstatement of Shri Khim Harji Patet,Credits and debits of substantialamounts were found with Ms. NationalConstruction Company. Since ShriKhimji Hari Patel has failed toexplain the credits and debits,therefore the transactions made byShri Khimi Harji Patel with respect to Ms. National Construction Companyremain unexplained 4. Enquiries made by the AO assequeltoInformationcollected/received:Necessaryassessment records, e-filing portaland Insight Portal in the case ofMs. National Construction Companywere perused and the information asstated in above Paragraphs wasexamined in light of Provisions ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Findings of the AO: From the indepth analysis of the credibleinformation received, it is provedthat debit and credit transactionsin the bank account of Shri KhimjiHarji Patel entered into with theassessee, remain unexplained inhands of M/s. National ConstructionCompany. Basis of forming reason to believeand details of escapement ofincome:- In view of the above facts,I have reasons to believe that Rs.3,22,50,000/- is the escapement ofincome within the meaning of escapedassessment under section 147 of theAct for the failure on the part ofthe assessee to disclose allmaterial facts fully and truly onrecord and this is a fit case forissue of notice u/s 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. This case iscovered in the ambit of Explanation2 to Section 147 of the Act. 7. Seventh paragraph will includeescapement of income chargeable totax in relation to any assets(including financial interest in anyentity) located outside India: N/a Basis of forming reason to believeand details of escapement ofincome:- In view of the above facts,I have reasons to believe that Rs.3,22,50,000/- is the escapement ofincome within the meaning of escapedassessment under section 147 of theAct for the failure on the part ofthe assessee to disclose allmaterial facts fully and truly onrecord and this is a fit case forissue of notice u/s 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. This case iscovered in the ambit of Explanation2 to Section 147 of the Act. 7. Seventh paragraph will includeescapement of income chargeable totax in relation to any assets(including financial interest in anyentity) located outside India: N/a 8. Applicability of provisions ofsection 147/161 to the facts of thecase: In this case a return ofincome was filed for the year underconsideration and regular assessmentu/s. 143(3) was made on 26.10.2016.It is seen that 4 years from the endof the relevant assessment year haveexpired in this case. It ispertinent to mention here thatreasons to believe that income hasescaped assessment for the yearunder consideration have beenrecorded above (refer paragraph 6above). I have carefully consideredthe assessment records containingthe submissions made by the assesseein response to various noticesissuedduringtheassessmentproceedings and have noted that theassessee has not fully and trulydisclosed the facts necessary forits assessment for the year underconsideration thereby necessitatingreopening u/s. 147 of the Act. It is true that the assessee hasfiled a copy of Annual Report andAudited Profit & Loss Account andBalance Sheet along with Return ofIncomewherevariousinformation/material were disclosed.However, the requisite full and truedisclosure of all material factsnecessary for assessment have not been made as noted above. It ispertinent to mention here that theassessee has produced books ofaccounts, annual report, audited P&LA/c and balance sheet or otherevidence as mentioned above, therequisite material facts as notedabove in the reasons for reopeningwere embedded in such manner thatthough could have been discoveredwith due diligence, do not mean thattrue and full disclosure of facts ismade by the assessee. Accordingly,provisions of Explanation 1 ofsection 147 of the Act areattracted. It is evident from the abovediscussion that in this case, theissues under consideration werenever examined by the AO during thecourse of regular assessment. Thisfact is corroborated from thecontents of notices issued by the AOu/s. 143(2)/142(1) and order sheetentries on various dates recordedduring the 143(3) proceedings. It isimportant to highlight here thatmaterial facts relevant for theassessment on the issue underconsideration were not filed duringthe course of assessment proceedingsand the same may be embedded inannual report, audited P&L A/C,Balance Sheet and books of accountin such a manner that it wouldrequire due diligence by the AO toextract this information. Forafforested reasons, it is not a caseof change of opinion by the AO. In this case, more than four yearshave lapsed from the end ofassessment year under consideration.Hence, necessary sanction to issuenotice u/s: 148 of the Act, has beenobtainedseparatelyfromthePrincipal Commissioner of Income-tax-1. Rajkot as per the provisionsof Section 151 of the Income TaxAct, 1961.” 5.8) The petitioner thereafter filed itsobjections against the reopening on02.07.2021. 5.9) The respondent thereafter passedorder dated 20.12.2021 rejecting theobjections raised by the petitioner to there-opening of assessment. 6.Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice is patently illegal,bad-in-law and without jurisdiction because the condition precedent for reopening undersection 147 beyond period of four years fromthe end of the relevant assessment year is 5.8) The petitioner thereafter filed itsobjections against the reopening on02.07.2021. 5.9) The respondent thereafter passedorder dated 20.12.2021 rejecting theobjections raised by the petitioner to there-opening of assessment. 6.Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice is patently illegal,bad-in-law and without jurisdiction because the condition precedent for reopening undersection 147 beyond period of four years fromthe end of the relevant assessment year is not satisfied. 6.1) Referring to section 147 of the Act,it was submitted that before reopening anassessment, the conditions specified in thesaid section are to be fulfilled. 6.2) It was submitted that the impugnednotice has been issued on 30.03.2021 which isadmittedly beyond the expiry of four yearsfrom end of Assessment Year 2014-2015 thoughthe assessment was completed under section143(3) on 26.10.2016. Thus, the case fallsunder the proviso to section 147 of the Act.It was submitted that one and the only groundon which reopening could be made by AssessingOfficer under the proviso to section 147after a period of four years from the end ofthe relevant assessment year is the omissionor failure on part of the assessee todisclose truly and fully all material facts for assessment. It was submitted that onperusal of the reasons recorded it appearsthat the impugned notice was issued on theground that the debits and credits in thebank account of Shri Khimji Harji Patel wereunexplained in absence of copy of computationand book/supportive documents. It wassubmitted that the said reason cannot empowerthe respondent to initiate reassessment undersection 147 of the Act when the case isfalling under the proviso to section 147inasmuch as the same was not failure on partof the petitioner-firm. 6.3) It was submitted that the impugnedreassessment notice as well as the re-assessmentproceedingsarewithoutjurisdiction and illegal also for the reasonthat it was a case of change of opinion onpart of the respondent with regard to thesource of deposits made in the banks and reopening an assessment cannot be permittedon account of change of opinion. Relyingupon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reportedin (2010) (320 ITR 561),it was submitted thatreopening of the assessment is not ajurisdiction to review an order. It wassubmitted that in the present case, therespondent had issued questionnaire dated13.6.2016 and in response to this query, the petitioner had furnished reply wherein theinformation as sought for were supplied Therefore, the issuance of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion. 6.4) It was submitted that the respondenthas formed the belief on the ground that ShriKhimji H. Patel had failed to explain thecredits and debits in the account no. 2738 with IDBI Bank. It was submitted that thepartnership firm is not required to explain the source in respect of credits in capitalaccount of the partner of the firm, once heis assessed to tax. It was submitted that thefailure to explain the source by the partnerwill not amount to unexplained credit inhands of the partnership firm. It wastherefore, submitted that the entirefoundation of reopening is based on incorrectpremises as held by this Hon'ble Court incase of Pr. CIT vs. Vaishnodevi Refoils &Solvex reported in [2018] 89 taxmann.com 80(Gujarat). It was further submitted that thecontroversy involved in the present case,stands squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court in the case of CIT v. PankajDyestuff Industries in Income Tax ReferenceNo. 241 of 1993. 6.5) It was further submitted that thereis no discrepancy in the amount transferredfrom Bank account no. 2738 to the capital 6.5) It was further submitted that thereis no discrepancy in the amount transferredfrom Bank account no. 2738 to the capital account with the petitioner firm as it wasevident from the details given in objectionletter and ledger account of Shri Khimji H.Patel so the belief formed by the respondentis unfounded. 6.6) LearnedadvocateMr.Divatiasubmitted that a perusal of the orderdisposing the objections raised by thepetitioner shows that the respondent hasadvanced the reasons of non-attendance inresponse to summons by Shri Patel, absence ofcomputation of income, books of accounts andfailure of the partner to explain credits anddebits which are not tenable. 7.On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval for the respondent submitted that thepetitioner has not fully and truly disclosedthe facts necessary for its assessment forthe year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening under section 147 ofthe Act. 7.1) It was submitted that it is truethat the petitioner had filed a copy ofAnnual Report and Audited Profit and LossAccount and Balance Sheet along with Returnof Income where various information/materialwere disclosed. However, the requisite fulland true disclosure of all material factsnecessary for assessment had not been made asnoted in the reasons for reopening. 7.2) It was submitted that the AssessingOfficer analysed the available informationand after analysing the information and afterverifying the records available with theoffice, the Assessing Officer, recorded thereasons for reopening the case and issuednotice under section 148 of the Act afterobtaining due approval from the Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot. It was further submitted that in thereasons recorded, satisfaction was clearlyrecorded regarding the escapement of theincome chargeable to tax from assessment. 7.3) Relying upon the judgment of theHon’ble Apex Court it was submitted that in case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Limited reported in 291 ITR 500, it wassubmitted that at the stage of initiation ofreassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, it is not required to beconclusively proved that income has actuallyescaped assessment. The only requirement isthat whether there was any relevant materialon which a reasonable person can form therequisite belief that taxable income hasescaped assessment. 7.4) Relying upon the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd, reported in 236 ITR 34, it was submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Courthas held that at the stage of initiation ofreassessment, the only thing required to beseen is that whether there is any prima faciematerial on the basis of which, a case can bereopened. It is further held that thesufficiency or correctness of material is nota thing to be considered at this stage. 7.5) It was submitted that the respondenthad issued the questionnaire to thepetitioner vide letter dated 01.04.2015 wherein various details were called for from thepetitioner It was submitted that on perusalof the material available on record, it wasfound that the petitioner had submitted itsdetails on 07.01.2016 and regarding the issueof the sources of the capital introduction,the petitioner has submitted mere statement/ chart without any evidences. However, thepetitioner had not submitted any evidence to substantiate its claim i.e. confirmation ofaccounts, copy of the bank account statementsof the partner from where such capital isintroduced, details/evidence of loan taken bythe partner to introduce capital in firm.Hence, in the absence of the concreteevidence, the issue could not be verified dueto the failure on the part of the assesseeresulting in the escapement of income undersection 147 of the Act. chart without any evidences. However, thepetitioner had not submitted any evidence to substantiate its claim i.e. confirmation ofaccounts, copy of the bank account statementsof the partner from where such capital isintroduced, details/evidence of loan taken bythe partner to introduce capital in firm.Hence, in the absence of the concreteevidence, the issue could not be verified dueto the failure on the part of the assesseeresulting in the escapement of income undersection 147 of the Act. 7.6) It was submitted that as per thechart submitted by the assessee during thecourse of assessment proceedings undersection 143(3) of the Act, it shows that thattotal amount of Rs.2,09,00,000/- has beentransferred to National Construction Co. byMr. K.H. Patel (partner) during the FinancialYear 2012-2013, out of which a sum ofRs.2,00,00,000/- has been transferred fromIDBI Bank Ltd. of Mr. K. H. Patel on 07.12.2012. However, as per the informationavailable with the Department, total amountof Rs.5,88,57,000/- has been transferred tothe account of National Construction Company(the petitioner) from the Bank AccountNo.0411102000002738 (IDBI Bank Ltd.) of Mr. K. H. Patel on different dates during theFinancial Year 2012-2013. Therefore, the transactions made in the bank account of Mr. K. H. Patel (partner) with the petitionerdiffer from the transactions shown in thecapital account of the partner, which wasfurnished during the course of assessmentproceedings. 7.7) It was further submitted that it is the prerogative of the Assessing Officer toenquire about the sources in respect of thecapital introduced so as to verify the issueof accommodation entries which are made bythe layering of the multiple transactions through the various accounts. By theaccommodation entries, the unaccounted fundsare routed through the layer of multipleaccounts to take back the unaccounted fundsinto the books which becomes imperative forverification. 8.Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties, it isnot in dispute that the Assessment Year 2014-2015 is sought to be reopened by theAssessing Officer beyond the expiry of fouryears from the end of the relevant assessmentyear. The assessment was completed undersection 143(3) of the Act on 26.10.2016 and,therefore, as per the proviso to section 147of the Act, only the Assessing Officer canreopen the assessment after a period of fouryears from the end of relevant assessmentyear if there is failure on part of theassessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Infacts of the case, when the assessee hasfurnished the details with regard to thesource of funds and the details of mode ofreceipt of the amounts which are transferredto the petitioner firm with regard to thecapital introduced by the partners of thefirm. The Assessing Officer has completed the regular assessment proceedings after havingconsidered the explanation and materialproduced by the petitioner with regard to thecredits in the capital account of thepartners. Therefore, the assessee has dulydischarged the onus cast upon it and if theAssessing Officer was not convinced about thecreditworthiness of the partner who had madecapital contribution, inquiry had to be madeat the hands of the partner and not againstthe petitioner firm. regular assessment proceedings after havingconsidered the explanation and materialproduced by the petitioner with regard to thecredits in the capital account of thepartners. Therefore, the assessee has dulydischarged the onus cast upon it and if theAssessing Officer was not convinced about thecreditworthiness of the partner who had madecapital contribution, inquiry had to be madeat the hands of the partner and not againstthe petitioner firm. 9.The controversy involved in this case issquarely covered by the decision of thisCourt in case of CIT v. Pankaj DyestuffIndustries in Income Tax Reference No. 241 of1993. It is clear that the petitioner firm isnot obliged to explain source of source inrespect to the credits in capital account ofthe partners of the partnership firm once thepartner is assessed to tax and failure toexplain the source by the partner would notamount to unexplained credit in the hands ofthe partnership firm, more particularly, whensuch issue is already considered during thecourse of the regular assessment. 10.The Assessing Officer has formed reasonto believe that income has escaped assessmenton the ground that Shri Khimji Harji Patelhas failed to explain the credit and debitaccount in account with IDBI Bank no. 2738.In our opinion, it would amount to change of opinion as such issue is already consideredby the Assessing Officer in the originalassessment proceedings and therefore, thereis a lack of jurisdiction to reopen theassessment which amounts to reviewing theassessment order which is already passedunder section 143(3) of the Act as held bythe Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC) whereinit is held as under: “2. A short question which arises fordetermination in this batch of civilappeals is, whether the concept of"change of opinion" stands obliteratedwith effect from 1st April, 1989, i.e.,after substitution of Section 147 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 by Direct Tax Laws(Amendment) Act, 1987? xxxx 6. …………prior to Direct Tax Laws(Amendment) Act, 1987, re-opening couldbe done under above two conditions andfulfillment of the said conditions aloneconferred jurisdiction on the AssessingOfficer to make a back assessment, but insection 147 of the Act [with effect from1st April, 1989], they are given a go-by and only one condition has remained,viz., that where the Assessing Officerhas reason to believe that income hasescaped assessment, confers jurisdictionto re- open the assessment. Therefore,post-1st April, 1989, power to re-open ismuch wider, However, one needs to give aschematic interpretation to the words"reason to believe" failing which, we areafraid, Section 147 would give arbitrarypowers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "merechange of opinion", which cannot be perse reason to re-open. We must also keepin mind the conceptual difference betweenpower to review and power to re-assess.The Assessing Officer has no power toreview; he has the power to re-assess.But re-assessment has to be based onfulfillment of certain pre-condition andif the concept of "change of opinion" isremoved, as contended on behalf of theDepartment, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would takeplace. One must treat the concept of"change of opinion" as an in-built testto check abuse of power by the AssessingOfficer…..” 11.In view of above facts and settled legal position, the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent authority as well as relianceplaced on the decisions would not beapplicable in facts of the case. 12.For the foregoing reasons, the petitionsucceeds and the impugned notice dated31.03.2021 issued under section 148 of the 11.In view of above facts and settled legal position, the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent authority as well as relianceplaced on the decisions would not beapplicable in facts of the case. 12.For the foregoing reasons, the petitionsucceeds and the impugned notice dated31.03.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act by the respondent exercising the powersto reopen the assessment for the AssessmentYear 2014-2015 is illegal and hereby quashedand set aside. As a consequence, order dated20.12.2021 passed by the Assessing Officerdisposing of the objections of the petitioneragainst the impugned notice is also quashedand set aside. 13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaidextent. No order as to costs. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)