R/Special Civil Application v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad & 3 Other(S

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15556 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15557 of 2018=============================================M/S ROQUTTE RIDDHI SIDDHI PVT. LTD. VersusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(2),AHMEDABAD & 3 other(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR ISHAN MIHIR PATEL(6508) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Date : 11/06/2021 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA) 1. As common question of law and facts arise in these writapplications with respect to the same assessee for thedifferent assessment years, both these writ applicationswere taken up for hearing analogously and are herebydisposed of by this common order. applications with respect to the same assessee for thedifferent assessment years, both these writ applicationswere taken up for hearing analogously and are herebydisposed of by this common order. 2. M/s. Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Private Ltd. being a privatelimited company seeks to challenge the impugned Noticedated 15.03.2018 issued by the respondent under Section148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act,1961’), whereby, the revenue sought to be re-opened thewrit applicants' income tax assessment for the A.Y. 2013-14. limited company seeks to challenge the impugned Noticedated 15.03.2018 issued by the respondent under Section148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act,1961’), whereby, the revenue sought to be re-opened thewrit applicants' income tax assessment for the A.Y. 2013-14. 3. Facts for the A.Y. 2013-14 :- Briefly stated the facts are that, the assessee being aprivate limited company engaged in the business ofmanufacturing starch and its derivatives. On 30.11.2013,the company filed its return of income declaring totalincome at Rs.Nil. The case of the assessee was selectedfor scrutiny and the assessment was completed underSection 143 (3) of the Act and the income was assessed atRs.12,01,830/- during the course of the assessmentproceedings. Thereafter, the assessing officer reopenedthe assessment under Section 147 of the Act by issuingthe impugned notice dated 15.03.2018 under Section 148of the Act. The writ applicant filed its return of income in response tothe impugned notice and requested to supply the copy ofthe reasons recorded for reopening and the same wassupplied by the revenue vide its communication dated10.04.2018. Vide letter dated 14.05.2018, the assesseehad raised the objections and the same was rejected bythe revenue vide its order dated 13.07.2018. Theassessment for the year under consideration is sought tobe reopened by the revenue mainly on the ground thatthe assessee company had taken bogus accommodationentries (amounting to Rs.14,71,24,737/-) and the companywhich had provided accommodation entries fromSampada Chemicals Ltd. (SCL for short), which is boguscompany, managed and controlled by entry provider Shri Vipul Bhatt and therefore, the amount has escapedassessment for the year under consideration. 4. Facts for the A.Y. 2015-16:- On 29.11.2015, the assessee company filed its return ofincome declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The case of theassessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and it wascompleted under Section 143 (3) of the Act. The income ofthe assessee was assessed at Rs.12,01,830/- during thecourse of the assessment proceedings. Thereafter, theassessing officer reopened the assessment under Section147 of the Act by issuing the impugned notice dated15.03.2018 under Section 148 of the Act for the yearunder consideration. Vipul Bhatt and therefore, the amount has escapedassessment for the year under consideration. 4. Facts for the A.Y. 2015-16:- On 29.11.2015, the assessee company filed its return ofincome declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The case of theassessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and it wascompleted under Section 143 (3) of the Act. The income ofthe assessee was assessed at Rs.12,01,830/- during thecourse of the assessment proceedings. Thereafter, theassessing officer reopened the assessment under Section147 of the Act by issuing the impugned notice dated15.03.2018 under Section 148 of the Act for the yearunder consideration. The writ applicant filed its return of income in response tothe impugned notice and requested to supply the copy ofthe reasons recorded for reopening and the same wassupplied by the revenue vide its communication dated10.04.2018. Thereafter, the assessee vide letter dated04.05.2018 raised the objections and the same came tobe disposed of by the revenue vide order dated13.07.2018. The assessment for the year underconsideration is sought to be reopened by the revenuemainly on the ground that the assessee company hadtaken bogus accommodation entries (amounting toRs.4,42,49,474/-) and the company which had providedaccommodation entries from SCL, which is boguscompany managed and controlled by Shri Vipul Bhatt andtherefore, the amount has escaped assessment for the year under consideration. 5. The assessing officer before issuing the impugned Notice for the respective years, had recorded the followingreasons for reopening of the assessment. In both thecases, the contents of the reasons recorded are same,therefore, for the sake convenience, reasons recorded forA.Y 2013-14 shall be taken into consideration, which readsthus: Reasons recorded:- “11.A search & Seizure action under Section132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried outin the case of Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt and his otherrelated entities viz. (i) M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited(ii) M/s. Sampada Chemicals Ltd. (iii) M/s. P. SajiTextiles Ltd. (iv) M/s. Shyam Alcohol andChemicals Ltd. (v) M/s. Shipra Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (vi)M/s. Victory Sales Private Ltd. (vii) M/s. LunkedTextiles Private Ltd. (viii) M/s. Eager Corporation(ix) M/s. Vikrant Marketing (x) M/s, AcuteConsultancy Ltd. &(xi) M/s. Dulex Commercial Pvt.Ltd. on 05.02.2016. During the search action thestatement of Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt was recordedon 29.02.2016 under Section 132(4) of the Act. Inthe statement, Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt has acceptedthat he is an entry operator and all the abovementioned entities/companies are bogus entities/companies, which are used by him for providingvarious bogus accommodation entries to thevarious beneficiaries for commission. Mr. VipulVidur Bhatt also accepted that he is director inthese entities/companies and all other directors ofthese entities/companies are dummy directorsappoitned by him. Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt alsoaccepted that he controls the entire activities/affairs of these entities /companies and theseentities/companies were incorporated forproviding bogus accommodation entries only. Inthe statement recorded under Section 132(4) ofthe IT Act, 1961, Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt alsoaccepted that he has controlled, managed andoperated as many as 347 bogus entities which areoperated by him for providing bogus accommodation entries to the variousbeneficiaries for commission. accommodation entries to the variousbeneficiaries for commission. During the search action under Section 132(4) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, the entire books ofaccounts, income tax related documents,company law matters related documents,VAT/sales Tax etc of all the 347 bogusentites/companies were found at an undisclosedpremise 1407, 14[th] Floor, New Jaiphalwadi, PoliceColony, Tardeo, Mumbai-400034, which is neitherregistered office of these bogus entities/companies nor this premise is related to thesebogus entities/companies in any way. During the search action at 1407, 14[th] Floor, NewJaiphalwadi, Police Colony, Tardeo, Mumbai-400034, the rubber stamps of any common sealsof all the 347 bogus entities, which are managed,controlled and operated by Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhattfor providing bogus accommodation entries wereseized. Further, during the search action at1407, 14[th] Floor, New Jaiphalwadi, Police Colony,Tardeo, Mumbai-400034, the PAN cards of all the347 bogus entities which are managed, controlledand operated by Mr. Vipul Bhatt for providingbogus accommodation entries were also found atthis premise. All the PAN cards of all the bogusentities were seized. On perusal of the ledger account of the bogusentities/companies managed, controlled andoperated by Shri Vipul Bhatt, it is seen that theassessee has taken the following bogusaccommodation entries:- As the above mentioned entities in column-2 ofthe table, the above are bogus entities managed,controlled and operated by Mr. Vpul Bhatt forproviding bogus accommodation entries, all thetransactions entered into between the abovementioned entities and the assessee beneficiaryare bogus accommodated entries in nature.” 6. Being aggrieved by the impugned notice as well as theorder disposing of the objections, the writ applicants havecome up before this Court with the present writ applications. 7. We have heard Mr. S.N.Soparkar, the learned Sr. Counselassisted by Mr. Ishan Mihir Patel, the learned counselappearing for the writ applicants and Mrs. Mauna Bhatt,the learned Sr. Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. KaranSanghani, the learned counsel for the Revenue in both thewrit applications. assisted by Mr. Ishan Mihir Patel, the learned counselappearing for the writ applicants and Mrs. Mauna Bhatt,the learned Sr. Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. KaranSanghani, the learned counsel for the Revenue in both thewrit applications. 8. Mr. Soparkar, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the writapplicants in both the writ applications raised thefollowing contentions :-applicants in both the writ applications raised thefollowing contentions :- (i)That during the F.Y.2011-12, the assessee companypurchased certain quantity of maize amounting toRs.9,96,24,737/- from M/s. Sampada Chemicals Ltd. (forshort “SCL”) for manufacturing of starch and made partpayment of Rs.1.50 crore and remaining outstandingamount Rs.8,46,24,737/- being made during F.Y. 2012-13and the same was reflected in the books of accounts forrelevant year of the transaction. In the background of theaforesaid facts, it was submitted that, for the A.Y.2012-2013, the assessee company had no liability so far asoutstanding of SCL is concerned and thereafter, thecompany had not entered into any transaction with theSCL. (ii) It was submitted that, the impugned notice is illegal,bad in law and against the statutory provisions of the Act.(iii) It was submitted that the impugned order ofdisposing of the objections against the notice was withoutconsidering the objections raised by the assesseecompany as the assessee had specifically stated that, the (ii) It was submitted that, the impugned notice is illegal,bad in law and against the statutory provisions of the Act.(iii) It was submitted that the impugned order ofdisposing of the objections against the notice was withoutconsidering the objections raised by the assesseecompany as the assessee had specifically stated that, the company had not entered into any transactions with SCLduring A.Y 2013-14 and to substantiate the same, thecompany had submitted the ledger account showing thepart payment as well as final payment. Relying on thedecision of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. 2003 259 ITR 19,it was submitted that the order disposing of theobjections having been passed mechanically withoutassigning reasons on the issue raised in the objections. (iv) It was further submitted that, in the previousassessment proceedings, the assessee company hadfurnished all the details and based on the detailsprovided, the assessing officer had framed assessmentorder under Section 143 (3) of the Act and now on thesame materials, without any tangible material, theassessing officer sought to reopen the assessment, whichis nothing, but a change of opinion and therefore, mere achange of opinion, reopening of concluded assessment isnot permissible in law. (v)It was also submitted that, the reasons for recordingreopening of the assessment seem to be vague and whilerecording the reasons, neither the AO made inquiries forhis satisfaction nor he applied his mind led to formationof belief that the income has escaped assessment. Thus,reopening passed on borrowed satisfaction is notpermissible in law. (vi) Referring to the reasons recorded, it was submittedthat, it suffers from various infirmities and are too vagueand no independent findings are being recorded by theAO. (vii) It was submitted that, reasonable belief ascontemplated under Section 147 /148 of the Act must bethat of an honest and reasonable person based uponreasonable ground and it should not be based on somesuspicious and vague reason. Whereas, in this case, thereasons are vague and do not reveal any income havingescaped assessment and furthermore, reasons recordedmade it clear that, this is a case of borrowed satisfactionwithout any independent application of mind. 9. In view of the above contentions, learned counsel for thewrit applicants prays that the impugned notices as well asthe order disposing of the objections are required to bequashed and set aside and the writ applications may beallowed, as prayed for. writ applicants prays that the impugned notices as well asthe order disposing of the objections are required to bequashed and set aside and the writ applications may beallowed, as prayed for. 9. In view of the above contentions, learned counsel for thewrit applicants prays that the impugned notices as well asthe order disposing of the objections are required to bequashed and set aside and the writ applications may beallowed, as prayed for. writ applicants prays that the impugned notices as well asthe order disposing of the objections are required to bequashed and set aside and the writ applications may beallowed, as prayed for. 10.On the other hand, Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, the learned Sr.Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue opposed thewrit applications contending that for A.Y. 2013-14, thereturn of income of the assessee was selected for scrutinyand order under Section 143 was passed assessing theincome at Rs.12,01,830/- and thereafter, search andseizure action under Section 132 of the Act was carriedout at the premises of Mr. Vipul Bhatt and his relatedentities and during the aforesaid proceedings, thestatement of Mr. Bhatt was recorded, wherein, headmitted that, the SCL was bogus and paper company andwas used for providing various accommodation entries tovarious beneficiaries and from the ledger account of thecompany, it was noticed that, the assessee is one of thebeneficiary for A.Y. 2013-14 and 205-16 and therefore, AOStanding Counsel appearing for the revenue opposed thewrit applications contending that for A.Y. 2013-14, thereturn of income of the assessee was selected for scrutinyand order under Section 143 was passed assessing theincome at Rs.12,01,830/- and thereafter, search andseizure action under Section 132 of the Act was carriedout at the premises of Mr. Vipul Bhatt and his relatedentities and during the aforesaid proceedings, thestatement of Mr. Bhatt was recorded, wherein, headmitted that, the SCL was bogus and paper company andwas used for providing various accommodation entries tovarious beneficiaries and from the ledger account of thecompany, it was noticed that, the assessee is one of thebeneficiary for A.Y. 2013-14 and 205-16 and therefore, AO based on the information made independent enquiriesand formed a belief that, the income has escapedassessment. Under such circumstances, it was submittedthat, the revenue is justified in reopening the assessmentfor the year under consideration. It was submitted that,the AO while passing the order of disposing of theobjections, had considered the issue raised by the assesseand detail order came to be passed. Thus, the decisionarrived at by the authority to reopen the assessment forboth the years are just and proper. 11.In view of the aforesaid contentions, Mrs. Mauna Bhatt,the learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for therevenue submits that, there being no merits in the writapplications, the same deserve to be dismissed. the learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for therevenue submits that, there being no merits in the writapplications, the same deserve to be dismissed. 12.Considered the submissions advanced by learned counselappearing for the respective parties and perused the casepapers. appearing for the respective parties and perused the casepapers. 13.In both the writ applications, the assessee has questionthe legality and jurisdiction to issue the impugned noticedated 15.03.2018 issued under Section 148 of the Act andthe order disposing of the objections against the reasonsrecorded for reopening the assessment.the legality and jurisdiction to issue the impugned noticedated 15.03.2018 issued under Section 148 of the Act andthe order disposing of the objections against the reasonsrecorded for reopening the assessment. 12.Considered the submissions advanced by learned counselappearing for the respective parties and perused the casepapers. appearing for the respective parties and perused the casepapers. 13.In both the writ applications, the assessee has questionthe legality and jurisdiction to issue the impugned noticedated 15.03.2018 issued under Section 148 of the Act andthe order disposing of the objections against the reasonsrecorded for reopening the assessment.the legality and jurisdiction to issue the impugned noticedated 15.03.2018 issued under Section 148 of the Act andthe order disposing of the objections against the reasonsrecorded for reopening the assessment. 14.In both the cases, we find that the revenue has issuedimpugned notice under Section 148 of the Act for A.y.2013-14 and 2015-16, mainly on the ground that, theassessee had received accommodation entries by entryprovider Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt by using bogus paperimpugned notice under Section 148 of the Act for A.y.2013-14 and 2015-16, mainly on the ground that, theassessee had received accommodation entries by entryprovider Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt by using bogus paper company namely M/s. Sampada Chemicals Ltd. It is thestand of the revenue that, the enquiries and searchproceedings were conducted at the place where Mr. VipulBhatt was managing the affairs of the bogus company andduring the proceedings, the ledger account of SCLcompany was seized, wherein, it noticed that, the SCL hadprovided huge amount of accommodation entries, asreferred in the reasons recorded. It is the specific stand ofthe assessee that, the purchase transactions for the A.Y.2011-12, the company had entered into transactions andmade part payment and in the next year i.e. 2012-13,remaining outstanding balance of the purchase being paidto SCL and thereafter, the assessee had not entered intoany transaction with the SCL company. It also appearsfrom the record that, the assessee while submitting theobjections had furnished their books of accounts to showthat, for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2013-14 and2015-16, the assessee had not entered into anytransactions. 15.We have examined the reasons recorded for reopening ofassessment and order of disposing of the objections. Wefind that, the objections submitted by the assessee werenot extensively dealt with by the authority. Relevantextract of the objections submitted by the assessee andorder disposing of the objections reads as under:assessment and order of disposing of the objections. Wefind that, the objections submitted by the assessee werenot extensively dealt with by the authority. Relevantextract of the objections submitted by the assessee andorder disposing of the objections reads as under: Objections for A.Y. 2013-14:- 2.2.3 Your goodself has further mentioned that on perusal of theledger account of the bogus entities it is observed that the assesseehad entered into the following accommodation entries: Name of the bogus entity Amount FYDebit Credit Sampada Chemicals2012-138,46,24,737 6,25,00,000Ltd. 2.2.4 Your goodself has mentioned that on the basis of the abovefacts he has the reason to believe that Rs.14,71,24,737/- hasescaped assessment. 2.2.7 During the year under consideration, it had not entered intoany transactions with Sampada Chemicals Ltd. And hence there isno question of the transactions being bogus.2.2.8 Without prejudice to contentions of the assessee with respectto the validity of reassessment proceedings for FY 2012-13 and thefact that the above transaction is not bogus, in lieu of clarifying thefacts the assessee submits as under:- - As per the books of account of assessee of FY 2012-13, theopening payable balance to Sampada Chemicals ltd. WasRs.8,46,24,737/-; -The assessee had actually paid Rs.8,46,24,737/- to SampadaChemicals Ltd during FY 2012-13; 2.2.4 Your goodself has mentioned that on the basis of the abovefacts he has the reason to believe that Rs.14,71,24,737/- hasescaped assessment. 2.2.7 During the year under consideration, it had not entered intoany transactions with Sampada Chemicals Ltd. And hence there isno question of the transactions being bogus.2.2.8 Without prejudice to contentions of the assessee with respectto the validity of reassessment proceedings for FY 2012-13 and thefact that the above transaction is not bogus, in lieu of clarifying thefacts the assessee submits as under:- - As per the books of account of assessee of FY 2012-13, theopening payable balance to Sampada Chemicals ltd. WasRs.8,46,24,737/-; -The assessee had actually paid Rs.8,46,24,737/- to SampadaChemicals Ltd during FY 2012-13; -Accordingly as per the books of accounts of the assessee ofFY 2012-13 both debit total and credit totals in the ledger accountof Sampada Chemicals ltd is Rs.8,46,24,737/-. -For the reference of your goodself, copy of ledger account ofSampada Chemicals Limited for FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13 isenclosed herewith vide Annexure-3. 2.2.10The assessee also submits that the purchases from SampadaChemicals Ltd have been made in the preceding year i.e. 2011-12.hence, the assessee requests you to appreciate the facts thatduring the year under consideration the assessee has not enteredinto any transaction with Sampada Chemicals ltd. The same factcan also be appreciated from the ledger account of SampadaChemicals Ltd enclosed as Annexure 3. Order disposing of the objection for A.Y 2013-14:- 3.the assessee’s above objections have duly been considered.However, the same are not applicable in view of the discussionsmade hereunder:- a)As regards assessee’s objection that the informationregarding purchases and payments to the creditors could have beenascertained from the financial statements and other relevantdocuments submitted during the course of assessment proceedings,there is no failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts on thepart of the assessee and the reopening of the assessment is just onthe basis of the statement recorded during the search proceedings in the case of Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt and his other related entitiesnamely M/s. Sampada Chemicals ltd. And without conductingindependent enquiry or application of mind and therefore, thereopening of assessment is bad in law, it is to mention that in theinstant case, the information for the suspicious transaction hasbeen received and the same is complete and on the basis of thesame, the reopening of the assessment has been made. On perusalof the case records of the original assessment proceedings in thecase of the assessee, it is noticed that no opinion could have beenformed by the AO and no discussion has been made on theimpugned issues. Therefore, after recording the reasons thereof,the AO has reopened the assessment. c)As regards assessee’s objection that he had not entered intoany transaction with Sampada Chemicals ltd. As the purchases fromSampada Chemicals Ltd were made in the preceding year i.e. F.Y201-12. The assessee considering these facts stated that theincome has escaped assessment is not justified and consequentlythe proceedings initiated under Section 147 may be dropped in thisregard. It is to mention that in the reasons recorded for reopeningthe assessment the assessing officer has referred to the informationreceived and the financial years mentioned therein as well as thestatutory provisions which in his view is applicable. It may be thatthe issue whether the provisions in question of escapement wouldbe/not be added back in terms of the relevant provision of the Actand for the assessment year for which the case of the assessee isreopened, but the fact remains that it could not be examined at thetime of the original assessment finalized if there would be concretebelief or material.” Objections for A.Y. 2015-16 :- Objections for A.Y. 2015-16 :- 2.8In the reasons for reopening assessment proceedings for theFY 2012-13, your goodself has mentioned the following facts for thealleged accommodation entries: Without prejudice to contentions of the assessee with respectto the validity of reassessment proceedings for FY 2012-13and the fact that the above transactions is not bogus, in liey ofclarifying the facts the assessee submits as under: -As per the books of accounts of assessee of FY 2012-13, theopening payable balance to Sampada Chemicals ltd. WasRs.8,46,24,737/-; -The assessee had actually paid Rs.8,46,24,737/- to SampadaChemicals Ltd during FY 2012-13; -Accordingly as per the books of accounts of the assessee of FY 2012-13 both debit total and credit totals in the ledger accountof Sampada Chemicals ltd is Rs.8,46,24,737/-. -Whereas as per the information mentioned by your goodselffor FY 2012-13, there is a difference of Rs.2,21,24,737/- betweenthe debit balance and credit balance. -Hence, it apparently seems that in your facts this balance ofRs.2,21,24,737/- is carried forward to the subsequent years beingFY 2014-15, whereas in correct facts the assessee had paid theentire amount during FY 2012-13 and hence there are no paymentsor no transactions with Sampada Chemicals Ltd. During the FY2014-15. For the reference of your goodself, copy of ledger accountof Sampada Chemicals Ltd for FY 2011-12, FY 2012-13 enclosedherewith vide Annexure 3. Please note we have not opened masterdate of Sampada Chemicals Ltd. As supplier for FY 2014-15 screenshot from ERP is enclosed herewith vide Annexure 3. Order disposing of the objection for A.Y 2015-16 :- 3 a) In this regard, it is to mention that in the reasons recorded forreopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer has referred to theinformation received and the financial years mentioned therein aswell as the statutory provisions which in his view is applicable. Itmay be that the issue whether the provisions in question ofescapement would be/would not be added back in terms of therelevant provision of the Act and for the assessment year for whichthe case of the assessee is reopened, but the fact remains that itcould not be examined at the time of the original assessment.” 16. In view of the objections against the reasons recorded forreopening of assessment and the order disposing of theobjections, we are of the considered view that, thepreliminary objections filed by the writ applicants againstthe reasons recorded for reopening of assessment, havenot been properly dealt with by the AO. We take thenote of the fact that, while submitting the objections,the assessee had specifically taken a stand that, for A.Y.2011-12, the transactions of purchase being entered withSCL company and in the next year, the outstandingamount had been cleared by the assessee. In supportof such claim, the ledger account of the SCLmaintained in the books of accounts of the assessee had been submitted for perusal and adjudication. However, theobjections having not been properly dealt with theassessing officer. In the case of GKN Driveshaft (India)Ltd Vs. Income tax Officer & Ors. [(2003) 259 ITR19], the Apex Court held that, while disposing off theobjections against the notice issued under Section 148 ofthe Act, it is an obligatory on the part of the assessingofficer to deal with the issues raises therein and passspeaking order. The reason behind is that the filing of theobjections and passing of the order thereon is not anempty formality. The object behind the assessee to fileobjection and passing a speaking order by the AO thereon,is to ensure that, if assessee is in position to impress uponthe AO that, there is no reasonable ground for reopeningof the assessment, the AO may drop the proceedings andnot proceed further. 17. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered viewthat, the preliminary objections raised by the writapplicant in both the cases having not been properly dealtwith the by AO. The lapses is in clear violation of the ApexCourt. Thus, it appears that, the AO has passed the orderdisposing of the objections mechanically and withoutapplication of mind. In other words, not in a meaningfulmanner. We are conscious that disposing of the objectionsraised by the assessee, against the reasons recordedbefore issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Actthough not part of the statutory requirement, asprescribed under the Act, but the same is guided by thedirections issued by the Apex Court. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons thereof,the writ applications succeed in part. The orders disposingof the objections dated 13.07.2018 at Annexure-B (page41 of SCA/15556/2018 & Page 40 Annexure-B ofSCA/15557/2018) are hereby set aside and the mattersare remitted to the Assessing Officer. The Assessingofficer shall take into consideration the objections raisedby the writ applicants and pass a fresh speaking order inaccordance with law. We may clarify that, we haveotherwise not expressed any opinion on merits of the caseand we should otherwise also not to do as we areremitting the matters to the AO. Let the exercise beundertaken by the AO within a period of 8 weeks from thedate of receipt of this order. In the event, if the order thatthe AO may pass a fresh, is adverse in any manner, to theassessee, then, it shall be open for the assessee tochallenge the same before the appropriate forum inaccordance with law. However, in the event, if the order isadverse, then, at least a period of four weeks shall begranted to the assessee to take recourse of the remedyavailable to the assessee in law. the writ applications succeed in part. The orders disposingof the objections dated 13.07.2018 at Annexure-B (page41 of SCA/15556/2018 & Page 40 Annexure-B ofSCA/15557/2018) are hereby set aside and the mattersare remitted to the Assessing Officer. The Assessingofficer shall take into consideration the objections raisedby the writ applicants and pass a fresh speaking order inaccordance with law. We may clarify that, we haveotherwise not expressed any opinion on merits of the caseand we should otherwise also not to do as we areremitting the matters to the AO. Let the exercise beundertaken by the AO within a period of 8 weeks from thedate of receipt of this order. In the event, if the order thatthe AO may pass a fresh, is adverse in any manner, to theassessee, then, it shall be open for the assessee tochallenge the same before the appropriate forum inaccordance with law. However, in the event, if the order isadverse, then, at least a period of four weeks shall begranted to the assessee to take recourse of the remedyavailable to the assessee in law. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) SUCHIT (ILESH J. VORA,J)