Rajpal v. S.p.chal

Priya Soparkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3340 OF 2018 Avirat Star Homes Venture Private Limited… Petitioner V/s. Income Tax Officer -15(1)(2) and ors.… Respondents --- Mr.Firoz Andhyarujina with Mr.Maneek Andhyarujina with Mr.Harsh Kapadia for the Petitioner.Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Respondents. --- CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 13, 2018. P.C.:- 1.Petitioner has challenged a notice of re-opening ofassessment dated 26[th] March, 2018. 2.The brief facts are as under: Petitioner is a private limited company. For the assessmentyear 2011-12 the petitioner had filed the return of income on25[th] April, 2012 declaring total income of Rs.2749/-. The return was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” for short) without scrutiny. To re-open suchassessment the Assessing Officer issued impugned notice. Inorder to do so he had recorded following reasons: “The assessee filed return of income for A.Y.2011-12 electronically on 25.04.2012 declaringtotal income of Rs.2,749. The same processedu/s. 143(1) of the IT Act. 2.1ADIT (Inv.), Unit -3(1), Kolkata, vide letterNo.DDIT(Inv.)/Unit-3(1)/Kol/x-46651/18-19/10339 dated 27.02.2018, provided informationabout certain companies having bank accountswith INDUSIND Bank, Kolkata Stock ExchangeBranch and who were involved in givingaccommodation entries of various natures toseveral beneficiaries. 2.2According to the ADIT (Inv.), one suchcompany is Finelink Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (FSPL)holding Current A/c No.0515-AA2692-050 withINDUSIND Bank, Kolkata Stock Exchange Branch.Vide another letter dated 14.03.2018, he statedthat between 22.05.2010 to 31.03.2012, hugetune of fund has been washed out from the saidaccount of FSPL by several company seem to bereal beneficiary. He also stated that summons u/s131 issued to FSPL was received back unservedand as per ITD database that the company'sincome and tax for various years were as under: Income-tax details of the directors of FSPLprovided by him are as under: The ADIT (Inv.) also provided photocopies ofbank statements of Finelink Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. forthe period 22.05.2010 to 31.03.2012 and statedthat “.....From the bank statement and furtherinvestigation it is crystal clear that fund hadrouted through these A/c resulting in complexlayering without economic rationale and raisedsuspicion. The entire funds thus received wereimmediately being transferred or remitted to otherA/cs by way of RTGS, Fund Trf, confirming thereal beneficiaries like one M/s Avirat VenturesPvt. Ltd., PAN: bring back itsunaccounted money/cash into their regular booksof accounts of total Rs.110.25 lakhs for the F.Y.2010-11. The AO is also requested to quantify theyearwise amount received by their assessees fromthe given soft copy Bank statement ..” 3.In view of the above specific information, Ihave a reason to believe that in the case of theassessee, income chargeable to tax exceeding Rs.1lakh has escaped assessment by reason of failureon the part of the assessee to disclose fully andtruly all material facts necessary for its assessmentfor A.Y. 2011-12. Hence, it is a fit case for issue ofnotice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 3.Upon being supplied the reasons, the petitioner raisedobjections to the notice of re-opening under a communicationdated 25[th] September, 2018. Such objections were rejected bythe Assessing Officer by an order dated 20[th] October, 2018.Hence, this petition. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through thereasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and raised followingcontentions in support of the challenge: (1) The reasons are based on information received from the 3.Upon being supplied the reasons, the petitioner raisedobjections to the notice of re-opening under a communicationdated 25[th] September, 2018. Such objections were rejected bythe Assessing Officer by an order dated 20[th] October, 2018.Hence, this petition. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through thereasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and raised followingcontentions in support of the challenge: (1) The reasons are based on information received from the investigation wing. Such information itself does not suggest anyescapement of income of the petitioner chargeable to tax. (2) In such communication the investigation wing of the Income Tax Department had asked the Assessing Officer to quantify theyear-wise amount received by the assessee. This exercise theAssessing Officer never undertook. (3) The petitioner had sought certain information from theAssessing Officer upon receiving the reasons which the AssessingOfficer had not supplied. (4) The Assessing Officer did not have any tangible material toform a belief that income chargeable to tax had escapedassessment. The Assessing Officer had undertaken a mechanicalexercise and recorded the reasons for issuing the notice. 5.In support of his contentions the counsel relied on thefollowing decisions: (1) The judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Chhugamal Rajpal V. S.P.Chaliha[1], in which noticing that the AssessingOfficer had not set out any reasons for coming to the conclusionthat it was a fit case to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act,the Supreme Court held that the exercise of re-opening exercisewas invalid. (2) In case of decision of Division Bench of Gujarat High Courtin case of Amar Jewellers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner ofIncome-tax[2] in which in facts of the case, the Court had come tothe conclusion that the notice of re-opening was invalid. (3) In the judgment dated 16[th] April, 2018 of this Court inIncome Tax Appeal No. 1297 of 2015 in case of The Principal 1(1971)79 ITR 603(SC) 2(2018)92 tamann.com 4(Gujarat) Commissioner of Income Tax-5 Vs. M/s ShodimanInvestments Private Limited, in which while dismissing therevenue's appeal against the judgment of Income Tax AppellateTribunal, the ground of the assessee of invalidity of the re-opening of assessment was upheld. 6.On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Suresh Kumarappearing for the Department opposed the petition contendingthat the original return was accepted without scrutiny. TheAssessing Officer has recorded proper reasons for issuing notice.The issues on merits raised by the petitioner can be examinedonly during the assessment. 7.As noted, the return of the petitioner was accepted withoutscrutiny. Thus, there was no scrutiny assessment in the presentcase. Under the circumstances, the question of change ofopinion would not arise since the Assessing Officer had notformed any opinion on any of the issues arising out of the returnfiled by the petitioner. The Supreme Court in case of AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.[1]. in this context observed as under: 7.As noted, the return of the petitioner was accepted withoutscrutiny. Thus, there was no scrutiny assessment in the presentcase. Under the circumstances, the question of change ofopinion would not arise since the Assessing Officer had notformed any opinion on any of the issues arising out of the returnfiled by the petitioner. The Supreme Court in case of AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.[1]. in this context observed as under: “16. Section 147 authorises and permits theAssessing Officer to assess or reassess incomechargeable to tax if he has reason to believe thatincome for any assessment year has escapedassessment. The word 'reason' in the phrase reasonto believe would mean cause or justification. If theAssessing Officer has cause or justification to knowor suppose that income had escaped assessment, itcan be said to have reason to believe that an incomehad escaped assessment. The expression cannot beread to mean that the Assessing Officer should havefinally ascertained the fact by legal evidence orconclusion. The function of the Assessing Officer isto administer the statute with solicitude for thepublic exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness totaxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court inCentral Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO[1991 (191) ITR 662, for initiation of action undersection 147(a)(as the provision stood at therelevant time) fulfillment of the two requisiteconditions in that regard is essential. At that stage,the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant.In other words, at the initiation stage, what isrequired is 'reason to believe', but not theestablished fact of escapement of income. At thestage of issue of notice, the only question is whetherthere was relevant material on which a reasonableperson could have formed a requisite belief.Whether the materials would conclusively prove theescapement is not the concern at that stage. This isso because the formation of belief by the AssessingOfficer is within the realm of subjective satisfaction(see ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd.[1996 (217) ITR 597 (SC)] ; Raymond WoollenMills Ltd. v. ITO[ 1999 (236) ITR 34 (SC)]. 17. The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from April 1, 1989, as alsosections 148 to 152 are substantially different fromthe provisions as they stood prior to suchsubstitution. Under the old provisions of section147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down thecircumstances under which income escapingassessment for the past assessment years could beassessed or reassessed. To confer jurisdiction undersection 147(a) two conditions were required to besatisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must havereason to believe that income profits or gainschargeable to income tax have escaped assessment,and secondly he must also have reason to believethat such escapement has occurred by reason ofeither (i) omission or failure on the part of theassessee to disclose fully or truly all material factsnecessary for his assessment of that year. Both theseconditions were conditions precedent to be satisfiedbefore the Assessing Officer could have jurisdictionto issue notice under section 148 read with section147(a) But under the substituted section 147existence of only the first condition suffices. Inother words if the Assessing Officer for whateverreason has reason to believe that income hasescaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopenthe assessment. It is however to be noted that boththe conditions must be fulfilled if the case fallswithin the ambit of the proviso to section 147. Thecase at hand is covered by the main provision andnot the proviso.” The Supreme Court analyzed the distinction between the The Supreme Court analyzed the distinction between the acceptance of return under Section 143(1) of the Act andassessment which has been framed under Section 143(3) of theAct. The Court held that in the former case the Assessing Officer 9905 wp 3340-18-o would have much wider latitude to reopen the assessment. Inthe said judgment the Court also discussed the concept forreason to believe. Referring the earlier judgments of the SupremeCourt, the Court reiterated that the term "reason to believe" doesnot imply with certainty that the addition would be invariablymade in the assessment. 8. This aspect was reiterated by Supreme Court in laterjudgment in case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax andanr. Vs. Zuari Estate Development and Investment CompanyLimited[1]. 9.With this background, in my mind we may revisit thereasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. In the reasons theAssessing Officer referred to the report of the investigation wingin which it was found that one company namely FinelinkSuppliers Private Limited through its current account in IndusindBank between the specified period, had released huge fundsto several companies. It seems that notice under Section 131 of 1(2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 248 10905 wp 3340-18-o the Act was issued to said FSCI which was received unserved.The report also referred to the said company income and taxpaid for various years between financial years 2010-11, 2012-13 and noted that the gross profit and profit before tax werenegligible and the tax paid in all three years was nil. Theinvestigation wing also provided copies of the bank's statement ofFSPL for the period between 22[nd] May, 2012 to 31[st] March,2012 and conveyed that from the bank statement and furtherinvestigation it was clear that the funds had been routedthrough the accounts of the said company. The funds thusreceived were immediately transferred or remitted to otheraccounts by way of RTGS fund transfer pointing out that the realbeneficiaries were the petitioner and other similar companies, inwhose account the unaccounted money was brought throughregular books of accounts. 10.In our opinion, the information supplied by theinvestigation wing to the Assessing Officer thus formed a primafacie basis to enable Assessing Officer to form a belief of incomechargeable tax having escaped assessment. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Assessing Officer did not have reason tobelieve that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.Being a case where return were accepted without scrutiny, wemust leave the question of taxability of such allegedly escapedincome to Assessing Officer to examine during scrutinyassessment. 11.The Assessing Officer perused the information supplied bythe investigation wing and having formed the belief that incomechargeable to tax had escaped assessment, cannot be stated tohave acted mechanically. Further, mere fact that assessee hadasked for certain information from the Assessing Officer, which atthis stage was not supplied, would not invalidate the reasonsrecorded by the Assessing Officer in issuing the impugnednotice. 12.In case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-3 V. Gokul Ceramics[1] in division bench of Gujarat High Court hadin somewhat similar circumstances observed as under: 1241 Taxman 1 11.The Assessing Officer perused the information supplied bythe investigation wing and having formed the belief that incomechargeable to tax had escaped assessment, cannot be stated tohave acted mechanically. Further, mere fact that assessee hadasked for certain information from the Assessing Officer, which atthis stage was not supplied, would not invalidate the reasonsrecorded by the Assessing Officer in issuing the impugnednotice. 12.In case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-3 V. Gokul Ceramics[1] in division bench of Gujarat High Court hadin somewhat similar circumstances observed as under: 1241 Taxman 1 9. It can thus be seen that the entire materialcollected by the DGCEI during the search, whichincluded incriminating documents and othersuch relevant materials, was alongwith reportand show-cause notice placed at the disposal ofthe Assessing Officer. These materials primafacie suggested suppression of sale considerationof the tiles manufactured by the assessee toevade excise duty. On the basis of such material,the Assessing Officer also formed a belief thatincome chargeable to tax had also escapedassessment. When thus the Assessing officer hadsuch material available with him which heperused, considered, applied his mind andrecorded the finding of belief that incomechargeable to tax had escaped assessment, there-opening could not and should not have beendeclared as invalid, on the ground that heproceeded on the show-cause notice issued bythe Excise Department which had yet notculminated into final order. At this stage theAssessing Officer was not required to holdconclusively that additions invariably be made.He truly had to form a bona fide belief thatincome had escaped assessment. In this context,we may refer to various decisions cited by thecounsel for the Revenue. 10. In case of Central Provinces Manganese OreCo. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Nagpur (supra)the Supreme Court noted that in case of theassessee which had an office in London, thisCustoms authority had come to know that theassessee had declared very low price in respectof the consignment of Manganese exported bythem out of India. After due inquiries andinvestigations, the Customs authorities foundthat the assessee was systematically under-voicing the value of Manganese as compared with the prevailing market price. The IncomeTax Officer on coming to know about theproceedings before the Customs Collector in thisrespect issued notice for reopening of theassessment. In the reasons that the AssessingOfficer relied on the facts as found by theCustoms Authorities that the assessee had under-voiced goods during export. Under suchcircumstances, upholding the validity of thenotice for reopening, the Supreme Court heldand observed as under: "So far as the first condition is concerned, theIncome Tax Officer, in his recorded reasons, hasrelied upon the fact as found by the CustomsAuthorities that the appellant had under invoicedthe goods it exported. It is not doubt correct thatthe said finding may not be binding upon theincome tax authorities but it can be a validreason to believe that the chargeable income hasbeen under assessed. The final outcome of theproceedings is not relevant. What is relevant isthe existence of reasons to make the Income TaxOfficer believe that there has been underassessment of the assessee's income for aparticular year. We are satisfied that the firstcondition to invoke the jurisdiction of theIncome Tax Officer under Section 147(a) of theAct was satisfied." "So far as the first condition is concerned, theIncome Tax Officer, in his recorded reasons, hasrelied upon the fact as found by the CustomsAuthorities that the appellant had under invoicedthe goods it exported. It is not doubt correct thatthe said finding may not be binding upon theincome tax authorities but it can be a validreason to believe that the chargeable income hasbeen under assessed. The final outcome of theproceedings is not relevant. What is relevant isthe existence of reasons to make the Income TaxOfficer believe that there has been underassessment of the assessee's income for aparticular year. We are satisfied that the firstcondition to invoke the jurisdiction of theIncome Tax Officer under Section 147(a) of theAct was satisfied." 11. In case of Income Tax Officer v. PurushottamDas Bangur (supra) after completion ofassessment in case of the assessee, the AssessingOfficer received letter from Directorate ofInvestigation giving detailed particulars collectedfrom Bombay Stock Exchange which revealedearning of share and price of share increasedduring period in question and quotationappearing at Calcutta Stock Exchange was as a result of manipulated transaction. On the basisof such information, the Assessing Officer issuednotice for reopening of the assessment. Thequestion, therefore, arose whether theinformation contained in the letter of Directorateof Investigation could be said to be definiteinformation and the Assessing Officer could actupon such information for taking action underSection 147(b) of the Act. In such background,the Supreme Court observed as under: "12. Ms. Gauri Rastogi, the learned counselappearing for the respondents, has urged thatthe letter of Shri Bagai was received by theIncome tax Officer on March 26, 1974 and onthe very next day, that is, on March 27, 1974, heissued the impugned notice under Section147(b) of the Act and that he did not haveconducted any inquiry or investigation into theinformation sent by Shri Bagai. Merely becausethe impugned notice was sent on the next dayafter receipt of the letter of Shri Bagai does notmean that the Income Tax Officer did not applyhis mind to the information contained in the saidletter of Shri Bagai. On the basis of the said factsand information contained in the said letter, theIncome Tax officer, without any furtherinvestigation, could have formed the opinionthat there was reason to believe that the incomeof the assessee chargeable to tax had escapedassessment. The High Court, in our opinion, wasin error in proceeding on the basis that it couldnot be said that the Income Tax Officer had inhis possession information on the basis of whichhe could have reasons to believe that income ofthe assessee chargeable to tax had escapedassessment for the relevant assessment years. Forthe reasons aforementioned, we are unable touphold the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, theimpugned judgment of the High Court is setaside and the Writ Petitions filed by therespondents are dismissed. No order as to costs." 12. In case of Income Tax Officer v. SelectedDalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd.(supra), theassessment was reopened on the basis of theinformation contained in letter from ChiefMining Officer that the colliery of the assesseehad been inspected and there had been underreporting of coal raised. Upholding the validityof re-opening of assessment, the Supreme Courtheld and observed as under: Court. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, theimpugned judgment of the High Court is setaside and the Writ Petitions filed by therespondents are dismissed. No order as to costs." 12. In case of Income Tax Officer v. SelectedDalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd.(supra), theassessment was reopened on the basis of theinformation contained in letter from ChiefMining Officer that the colliery of the assesseehad been inspected and there had been underreporting of coal raised. Upholding the validityof re-opening of assessment, the Supreme Courtheld and observed as under: "After hearing the learned counsel for theparties at length, we are of the opinion that wecannot say that the letter aforesaid does notconstitute relevant material or that on that basis,the Income Tax Officer could not havereasonably formed the requisite belief. The lettershows that a joint inspection was conducted inthe colliery of the respondent on January 9,1967, by the officers of the Mining Departmentin the presence of the representatives of theassessee and according to the opinion of theofficers of the Mining Department, there wasunder reporting of the raising figure to theextent indicated in the said letter. The report ismade by a Government Department and that tooafter conducting a joint inspection. It gives areasonably specific estimate of the excessive coalmining said to have been done by the respondentover and above the figure disclosed by it in itsreturns. Whether the facts stated in the letter aretrue or not is not the concern at this stage. Itmay be well be that the assessee may be able toestablish that the facts stated in the said letterare not true but that conclusion can be arrived at only after making the necessary enquiry. At thestage of the issuance of the notice, the onlyquestion is whether there was relevant material,as stated above, on which a reasonable personcould have formed the requisite belief. Since weare unable to say that the said letter could nothave constituted the basis for forming such abelief, it cannot be said that the issuance ofnotice was invalid. Inasmuch as, as a result ofour order, the reassessment proceedings havenot to go on we don not and we ought not toexpress any opinion on the merits." 13. In case of A.G.R. Investment Ltd. v.Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.(supra), a Division Bench of Delhi High Courtconsidered the validity of reopening ofassessment where the notice was based oninformation received from Directorate ofinvestigation that the assessee was beneficiary ofbogus accommodation entries. The Court whileupholding the validity of reopening observedthat sufficiency of reason cannot be consideredin a writ petition. It was observed as under: "23 The present factual canvas has to bescrutinized on the touchstone of the aforesaidenunciation of law. It is worth noting that thelearned counsel for the petitioner has submittedwith immense vehemence that the petitioner hadentered into correspondence to have thedocuments but the assessing officer treated themas objections and made a communication.However, on a scrutiny of the order, it isperceivable that the authority has passed theorder dealing with the objections in a verycareful and studied manner. He has taken noteof the fact that transactions involving Rs. 27lakhs mentioned in the table in Annexure P-2 "23 The present factual canvas has to bescrutinized on the touchstone of the aforesaidenunciation of law. It is worth noting that thelearned counsel for the petitioner has submittedwith immense vehemence that the petitioner hadentered into correspondence to have thedocuments but the assessing officer treated themas objections and made a communication.However, on a scrutiny of the order, it isperceivable that the authority has passed theorder dealing with the objections in a verycareful and studied manner. He has taken noteof the fact that transactions involving Rs. 27lakhs mentioned in the table in Annexure P-2 constitute fresh information in respect of theassessee as a beneficiary of bogusaccommodation entries provided to it andrepresents the undisclosed income. The assessingofficer has referred to the subsequentinformation and adverted to the concept of trueand full disclosure of facts. It is also noticeablethat there was specific information received fromthe office of the DIT (INV-V) as regards thetransactions entered into by the assesseecompany with number of concerns which hadmade accommodation entries and they were notgenuine transactions. As we perceive, it isneither a change of opinion nor does it convey aparticular interpretation of a specific provisionwhich was done in a particular manner in theoriginal assessment and sought to be done in adifferent manner in the proceeding underSection 147 of the Act. The reason to believe hasbeen appropriately understood by the assessingofficer and there is material on the basis ofwhich the notice was issued. As has been held inPhool Chand Bajrang Lal (supra), BombayPharma Products (supra) and Anant KumarSaharia (supra), the Court, in exercise ofjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India pertaining to sufficiency of reasons forformation of the belief, cannot interfere. Thesame is not to be judged at that stage. In SFILStock Broking Ltd. (supra), the bench hasinterfered as it was not discernible whether theassessing officer had applied his mind to theinformation and independently arrived at abelief on the basis of material which he hadbefore him that the income had escapedassessment. In our considered opinion, thedecision rendered therein is not applicable to thefactual matrix in the case at hand. In the case ofSarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench had noted that certain companieswere used as conduits but the assessee had, atthe stage of original assessment, furnished thenames of the companies with which it hadentered into transactions and the assessingofficer was made aware of the situation andfurther the reason recorded does not indicateapplication of mind. That apart, the existence ofthe companies was not disputed and thecompanies had bank accounts and paymentswere made to the assessee company through thebanking channel. Regard being had to theaforesaid fact situation, this Court hadinterfered. Thus, the said decision is alsodistinguishable on the factual score." 14. Learned Single Judge of Madras High Courtin case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reportedin MANU/TN/0471/2008MANU/TN/0471/2008: [2008] 302 ITR 275 (Mad) upheld the noticefor reopening which was based on informationfrom enforcement directorate showing possibleinflation of purchases made by the assessee. 13.The decisions cited before us do not involve controversy aswe are examining in this petition. In the case of ChhugamalRajpal(supra) as noted, the Supreme Court held the re-openingof assessment invalid upon finding that the Assessing Officer hadnot set out any reasons for coming to the conclusion that it wasa fit case for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. In case 19 905 wp 3340-18-o 14. Learned Single Judge of Madras High Courtin case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reportedin MANU/TN/0471/2008MANU/TN/0471/2008: [2008] 302 ITR 275 (Mad) upheld the noticefor reopening which was based on informationfrom enforcement directorate showing possibleinflation of purchases made by the assessee. 13.The decisions cited before us do not involve controversy aswe are examining in this petition. In the case of ChhugamalRajpal(supra) as noted, the Supreme Court held the re-openingof assessment invalid upon finding that the Assessing Officer hadnot set out any reasons for coming to the conclusion that it wasa fit case for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. In case 19 905 wp 3340-18-o of Amar Jewellers Ltd.(supra) the Gujarat High Court wasexamining the validity of re-opening of assessment in a casewhere original assessment was carried out under Section 153(A)of the Act, pursuant to search carried out by the RevenueAuthorities. Further, the conclusions of the Court were based onfacts of that case. Lastly, this Court in case ShodimanInvestments Private Limited (supra) was examining therevenue's income tax appeal against the judgment of theTribunal holding that the re-opening of assessment was bad inlaw. 14.In the result, petition is dismissed. All contentions onmerits of the petitioner however kept open. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)….