Sca/3462/2022 Of Pravinkumar Premchandbhai Patel v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3462 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 ?==========================================================PRAVINKUMAR PREMCHANDBHAI PATEL VersusINCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1) ==========================================================Appearance:UMAIDSINGH BHATI(7973) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MR KARAN SANGANI, FOR M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIAandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 29/08/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Umaidsingh Bhatifor the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Karan Sangani for M.R. Bhatt & Co. for therespondents. 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. Karan Sangani for M.R. Bhatt & Co. waivesservice of notice of rule for therespondents. 4.The petitioner has preferred this petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia challenging the impugned notice dated30.03.2021 issued under section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”) proposing to reopen the assessment for theAssessment Year 2013-2014 as well as orderdated 25.01.2022 disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner against thereopening of the assessment. 5.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an individual and derives income from salary from his family concern M/s Patel D.J. Tobacco Products PrivateLimited in the capacity of the Director ofthe company since 2006. The petitioner alsoearns interest income from loans and advances, investments and deposits with theBanks. It is the case of the petitioner thatbesides the business related to 'Bidi' making, the petitioner has never entered intoany contract or sub-contract to do any otherkind of work especially civil or constructionrelated works. 5.1) The petitioner had electronicallyfiled his return of income for the AssessmentYear 2013-2014 on 19.07.2013 declaring totalincome of Rs.15,80,639/-. 5.2) It is the case of the petitionerthat as the petitioner had not received thenotice under section 143(2) for theAssessment Year 2013-14 within the stipulatedtime under the Act, the assessmentproceedings for the above assessment yearcame to an end and therefore, no proceedingswere pending against him. 5.3) The petitioner thereafter received anotice under section 148 dated 30.03.2021issued by the respondent No.1, stating thatthe Assessing Officer had reason to believethat income for Assessment Year 2013-2014 hadescaped assessment. 5.4) In response to the above noticeunder section 148, the petitioner has againuploaded a return of income on 16.04.2021declaring total income of Rs. 15,80,639/-.As the copy of reasons recorded was notprovided to the petitioner, he had requestedthe respondent to provide the same vide hisletter dated 16.09.2021, which was dispatchedthrough RPAD on 21.09.2021. It is the case 5.3) The petitioner thereafter received anotice under section 148 dated 30.03.2021issued by the respondent No.1, stating thatthe Assessing Officer had reason to believethat income for Assessment Year 2013-2014 hadescaped assessment. 5.4) In response to the above noticeunder section 148, the petitioner has againuploaded a return of income on 16.04.2021declaring total income of Rs. 15,80,639/-.As the copy of reasons recorded was notprovided to the petitioner, he had requestedthe respondent to provide the same vide hisletter dated 16.09.2021, which was dispatchedthrough RPAD on 21.09.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, therespondent No. 1 had uploaded a notice undersection 143(2) of the Act dated 22.09.2021along with which an Annexure was annexedcontaining extracts of reasons, where eventhe date of recording of reasons has not beenmentioned. 5.5) The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening theassessment under section 147 of the Act read as under : “1. Brief details of the assessee TheassesseePRAVINBHAIPREMCHANDBHAI PATEL, having PAN: and the assessee hadfiled return of income on 19-07-2013 1. Brief detalls of Informationcollected received by the AO: In this case, Information has beenreceived from the Insight Portal ofITBA in the case of PRAVINBHAIPREMCHANDBHAI PATEL for AY 2013-14As per information the assessee hasentered into bogus sub contract withSadbhavEngineerofRs21,00,00,000/- during the F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to A. Y. 2014-15. 1.Analysisofinformationcollected/received: On verification of details received,it is noticed that assessee hasentered into bogus sub contract withSadbhav Engineering Ltd of Rs.21,00,00,000/- during the F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to A.Y. 2014-15. Thegenuineness of the above transactionis not proved as it does notcommensurate with the ROI filed forthe year under consideration. Theassessee had not shown the abovetransactions, while filing the ROIof A.Y 2013-14. Therefore income ofRs. 21,00,00,000/- was not offered to tax by the assessee and the samehas escaped from assessment for A.Y.2013-14. 1. Findings of the AO: Based on the above information, thiscase is a fit case for re-opening u/s 147 of the act. On verification ofabove details received in INSIGHTPortal of the ITBA is ascertainedthat as the assessee had filed thereturn of AY 2013-14 on 19-07-2013.In view of the above facts thecreditworthiness, in regard to thistransaction made by the assessee isnot proved. Therefore income of Rs.21,00,00,000/- was not offered totax by the assessee and the same hasescaped from assessment for AY 2013-14. 1. Basis of forming reasons tobelieve and details of escapement ofincome: On verification of such information,I have reason to believe that theincome of Rs. 21,00,00,000/- hasescaped from assessment for A.Y.2013-14 1. Applicability of the provisionsof section 147/151 to the facts ofthe case: Afteranalyzingtheaboveinformation received in INSIGHTPortal of the ITBA, the data madeavailable in the ITS details of theassessee prima facle, I have reason to conclude that the assessee hadfailed to disclose fully and trulyall the particulars of his income. It is evident from the above factsthat the assessee had not truly andfully disclosed material factsnecessary for its assessment for theyear under consideration therebynecessitating reopening us.147 ofthe Act. 1. Basis of forming reasons tobelieve and details of escapement ofincome: On verification of such information,I have reason to believe that theincome of Rs. 21,00,00,000/- hasescaped from assessment for A.Y.2013-14 1. Applicability of the provisionsof section 147/151 to the facts ofthe case: Afteranalyzingtheaboveinformation received in INSIGHTPortal of the ITBA, the data madeavailable in the ITS details of theassessee prima facle, I have reason to conclude that the assessee hadfailed to disclose fully and trulyall the particulars of his income. It is evident from the above factsthat the assessee had not truly andfully disclosed material factsnecessary for its assessment for theyear under consideration therebynecessitating reopening us.147 ofthe Act. In this case, return of Income hasbeen filed for the year underconsideration,however,noassessment was made 143(3) of theAct and the only requirement toinitiate proceeding u/s.147 isreason to believe which has beenrecorded at above paragraphs. Inview of the above, the provisions ofclause (b) of explanation 2 tosection 147 are applicable to factsof this case and the assessment yearunder consideration is deemed to bea case where income chargeable totax has escaped assessment. In thiscase more than four years have beenlapsed from the end of assessmentyear under consideration. Hence,necessary sanction to issue noticeu/s 148 has been obtained separatelyfrom Pr. Commissioner of Income Taxas per the provisions of Sec. 151 ofthe Act.” vide letter dated 12.10.2021. It is the caseof petitioner that respondent No.2 finallyuploaded complete reasons recorded on22.12.2021 without the date of recording suchreasons. It is the case of the petitionerthat respondent no.2 has uploaded the orderdisposing of the objections without advertingto the objections raised by the petitioneralong with a complete set of reasons withsanction under section 151 of the Act on25.01.2022, however, thereafter withoutgiving any time to the petitioner to dealwith such reasons, respondent no.2 hasimmediately issued notice under section142(1) of the Act dated 31.01.2022 callingfor details in order to complete the assessment proceedings. 5.7) The petitioner has therefore, approached this Court by filing the presentpetition challenging the impugned action of the respondents. 6.Learned advocate Mr. Umaidsingh Bhati for thepetitioner submitted that the notice undersection 148 dated 30.03.2021 is an invalidnotice because the reasons recorded by therespondent on 30.03.2021 were based on vague,inchoate and incorrect information, and thattoo at the direction of the SuperiorAuthority [DGIT (System)]. Therefore, theimpugned Notice is wholly bad in law, illegal, and without jurisdiction. 6.1) It was submitted that the impugnednotice under section 148 of Act dated30.03.2021 and the impugned order dated25.01.2022 disposing of the objections areillegal, bad-in-law and without jurisdictionbecause conditions precedent for reopeningthe assessment under provisions of sections147 and 151 of the Act are not satisfied the respondents. 6.Learned advocate Mr. Umaidsingh Bhati for thepetitioner submitted that the notice undersection 148 dated 30.03.2021 is an invalidnotice because the reasons recorded by therespondent on 30.03.2021 were based on vague,inchoate and incorrect information, and thattoo at the direction of the SuperiorAuthority [DGIT (System)]. Therefore, theimpugned Notice is wholly bad in law, illegal, and without jurisdiction. 6.1) It was submitted that the impugnednotice under section 148 of Act dated30.03.2021 and the impugned order dated25.01.2022 disposing of the objections areillegal, bad-in-law and without jurisdictionbecause conditions precedent for reopeningthe assessment under provisions of sections147 and 151 of the Act are not satisfied inasmuch as section 147 of the Act empowersthe Assessing Officer to assess or re-assessincome chargeable to tax which he has reasonto believe has escaped assessment and thereason to believe ought to be of AssessingOfficer himself, and he should not act on thedirections of others or his superiors forreopening an assessment. It was submittedthat the existence of a reason to believe isan essential condition for exercising thepower to issue notice under section 148 ofthe Act and reopen an assessment. It wassubmitted that in the present case theAssessing Officer had the information thatthe assessee has entered into bogus sub-contract with Sadbhav Engineering Limited ofRs.21,00,00,000/- during the Financial year2013-2014 relevant to Assessment Year 2014-2015. The Assessing Officer therefore,analyzed the above information vis-a-visreturn of income and came to the conclusion that on verification of details received, itis noticed that assessee has entered intobogus sub-contract with Sadbhav EngineeringLtd. of Rs. 21,00,00,000/- during the Financial Year 2013-2014 relevant toAssessment Year 2014-2015 and the genuineness of the above transaction is notproved as it does not commensurate with theROI filed for the year under consideration.It was further found that the assessee hadnot shown the above transactions while filingthe ROI of Assessment Year 2013-2014 andtherefore income of Rs. 21,00,00,000/- wasnot offered to tax by the assessee and thesame has escaped from assessment for theAssessment Year 2013-2014. 6.2) It was submitted that from above recording of reasons it is clear that the alleged information pertaining to theentering into sub-contract by the petitioner with Sadbhav Engineering Limited was for theFinancial Year 2013-2014 relevant to theAssessment Year 2014-2015 and therefore, thequestion does not arise to offer the incomederived, if any, from the alleged subcontractin the return for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. Further, as the information pertains tothe Assessment Year 2014-2015, the reopeningof assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 is invalid on the basis of the aboveinformation. 6.3) It was submitted that the reasonsrecorded by the respondent has neithermentioned any investigation or enquiry inconnection with the allegation of bogussubcontract by the petitioner with SadbhavEngineering Limited by the InvestigationWing, nor has any such report been made partof the above reasons and no proper detailswere set out in the reasons recorded. It was therefore, submitted that there was neithercredible information nor tangible materialbefore the respondent at the time ofrecording of reasons, while reasons ought tobe based on some tangible material which is amandatory requirement under the provisions ofsection 147 of the Act. It was submitted thatthe reasons should be self-explanatory orself-evident and they must speak forthemselves because they are subject tojudicial scrutiny and the reasons arerequired to be read as they were recorded bythe Assessing Officer and no substitution ordeletion is permissible. therefore, submitted that there was neithercredible information nor tangible materialbefore the respondent at the time ofrecording of reasons, while reasons ought tobe based on some tangible material which is amandatory requirement under the provisions ofsection 147 of the Act. It was submitted thatthe reasons should be self-explanatory orself-evident and they must speak forthemselves because they are subject tojudicial scrutiny and the reasons arerequired to be read as they were recorded bythe Assessing Officer and no substitution ordeletion is permissible. 6.4) It was further submitted that the reasons recorded should be clear andunambiguous and should not suffer from anyvagueness and the reasons recorded should beself-explanatory and should not keep theassessee guessing as well as the reasons provide link between evidence and conclusion.It was submitted that the reasons recordedmust be based on evidence and in the event,the reasons recorded are challenged, theAssessing Officer must be able to justify thesame based on material available on record.It was submitted that the reasons recorded bythe Assessing Officer cannot be supplementedby filing affidavit or by making oralsubmission, otherwise, the reasons which arelacking in material particulars would getsupplemented, by the time the matter reachesto the Court, on the strength of affidavit ororal submissions advanced. In support of suchcontention, reliance was placed on thedecision in case of Hindustan Lever Limitedv/s R. B. Wadkar reported in (2004) 268 ITR332 (Bom)]. It was submitted that thecrucial link between information available tothe respondent and formation of belief wasabsent in the present case, which is necessary even in case where the return ofincome has been accepted under section143(1) of the Act. 6.5) It was submitted that there was acomplete lack of application of mind instating that the petitioner did not declaresubcontract transaction in the return ofincome. It was submitted that the wholecontract receipt as such cannot be equal tothe net profit or taxable income. Relevantexpenses and allowances as provided under theAct has to be deducted from the contractreceipts to arrive at taxable income. Thus,it cannot be stated that the wholesubcontract amount has escaped assessment. 6.6) It was further submitted that there was failure on the part of the AssessingOfficer to provide a copy of the materialbased on which it is alleged that the petitioner has entered into a subcontractwith Sadbhav Engineering Limited forRs.21,00,00,000/-. 6.7) It was submitted that the petitioner never entered into any contract orsubcontract with Sadbhav Engineering Limited,which deals in big infrastructural projects,while the petitioner has always been confinedto area of activities related tomanufacturing and trading of 'bidis' andrelated items. 6.8) It was submitted that had the petitioner entered into a subcontract, hewould have shown the related transactions inhis books of account and the return of incomein order to subserve the motives andobjective of both the parties to the subcontract. However, respondent no.2 failed tocontrovert any of the objections raised by the petitioner while disposing of theobjections. 6.9) It was submitted that the allegedinformation pertains to Assessment Year 2014-2015 while assessment for Assessment Year2013-2014 has been reopened. It was submittedthat the petitioner has clearly pointed outthat he has been engaged in the line ofmanufacturing and trading of bidis and thathe has never entered into a contract or sub-contract work with Sadbhav EngineeringLimited. It was submitted that the respondentdoe not provide or discuss an iota ofmaterial indicating existence of any contractor sub-contract between Sadbhav EngineeringLimited and the petitioner. the petitioner while disposing of theobjections. 6.9) It was submitted that the allegedinformation pertains to Assessment Year 2014-2015 while assessment for Assessment Year2013-2014 has been reopened. It was submittedthat the petitioner has clearly pointed outthat he has been engaged in the line ofmanufacturing and trading of bidis and thathe has never entered into a contract or sub-contract work with Sadbhav EngineeringLimited. It was submitted that the respondentdoe not provide or discuss an iota ofmaterial indicating existence of any contractor sub-contract between Sadbhav EngineeringLimited and the petitioner. 6.10) It was submitted that the respondentcould not establish that the facts stated inreasons recorded are correct and therefore, has proceeded on fundamentally wrong facts to come to belief/conclusion that incomechargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Itwas therefore, submitted that the noticeissued under section 148 of the Act dated30.03.2021 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014is invalid as held in decisions of BombayHigh Court in case of Ankita A. Choksey v/sITO reported in (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bom) andin case of Sea Glimpses Investments PrivateLimited v/s DCIT reported in 2021(12) TMI106- Bombay High Court. 7.On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Karan Sangani for the respondent at the outsetsubmitted that the petition is filed at apre-mature stage inasmuch as only a noticeunder section 148 read with section 147 ofthe Act has been issued and in the event, thepetitioner is aggrieved by the reassessment,alternative efficacious remedy is available by way of an appeal before the CIT(Appeals)and thereafter before the Tribunal as per theprovisions of the Act. In this regard,reliance is placed in the decision in case ofCommissioner of Income-tax vs. Chhabil DassAgarwal 357 ITR 357 and in case of the ShriSaibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Versus Unionof India (WRIT PETITION NO. 395 OF 2018). 7.1) It was submitted that theassessment was reopened after taking recourseto all administrative and legal proceduresand after duly recording the reasons forwhich the case was reopened and as per theprovisions of section 151 of the Act, thenotice under section 148 of the Act had dulybeen issued within the power conferred as perthe law and as per the provision of thesection 147 of the Act. Hence, it can neverbe said that notice under section 148 of theAct issued to the assessee is contrary to law. 7.2) It was submitted that as per the information reflected on Insight Portal, thepetitioner has entered into bogus sub contract with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. duringthe Financial year 2013-2014 relevant toAssessment Year 2014-2015 amounting to Rs.21,00,00,000/- and investment made by thepetitioner has not matched with petitioner’s income profile and also investment is notreflected in petitioner's books of accountsand therefore, the Assessing Officer had thereason to conclude that the petitioner hadfailed to disclose fully and truly all the particulars of his income and income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment byan amount of Rs. 21,00,00,000/-. 7.3) It was submitted that as per the information available to the department and records and subsequent findings arose out ofinformation gathered from the system, thecase was reopened as per the law afterrecording of satisfaction and taking approvalof the competent authority, hence it cannotbe said that the case was reopened withoutindependent application of mind. It wassubmitted that the Assessing Officer afteranalyzing all these facts, has recorded hisreason for reopening the case and sent thesame to competent authority for approval toissue notice under section 148 of the Act. particulars of his income and income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment byan amount of Rs. 21,00,00,000/-. 7.3) It was submitted that as per the information available to the department and records and subsequent findings arose out ofinformation gathered from the system, thecase was reopened as per the law afterrecording of satisfaction and taking approvalof the competent authority, hence it cannotbe said that the case was reopened withoutindependent application of mind. It wassubmitted that the Assessing Officer afteranalyzing all these facts, has recorded hisreason for reopening the case and sent thesame to competent authority for approval toissue notice under section 148 of the Act. 7.4) It was submitted that the case wasreopened as per the procedure after recordingof satisfaction and taking approval of thecompetent authority, hence it cannot be saidthat the case was reopened in mechanicalmanner. It was submitted that the mainingredient required to issue notice undersection 148 of the Act is to form reason to believe. At the stage of issue of noticeunder section 148, the only question iswhether there was relevant material on which reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief as to whether an incomechargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Itwas submitted that the expression “reason to believe” cannot be read to mean that theAssessing Officer should have finallyascertained the fact by legal evidence orconclusion.Whethermaterialwouldconclusively prove escapement of income isnot the concern at the stage of issue of notice. It only means that the AssessingOfficer forms a belief from the examinationof facts, from any information the AssessingOfficer receives. If the Assessing Officerdiscovers or finds or satisfies that thetaxable income has escaped assessment, itwould amount to saying that the AssessingOfficer had reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment. It wassubmitted that the justification of AssessingOfficer’s belief is not to be judged from thestandards of proof required for coming to afinal decision. A belief though justified forthe purpose of initiation of the proceedingsunder section 147 may ultimately standaltered after the hearing and while reachingthe final conclusion on the basis of theintervening enquiry. 7.5) Relying upon the judgment of DelhiHigh Court in case of Bawabhai Singh Vs.DCIT, reported in 253 ITR 83, it was submitted that the Court observed that "theremust be some material which can be regardedas information, on the basis of which theAssessing Officer can have reason to believethat action under section 147 is called for.Information means the communication orreception of knowledge or intelligence. It includesknowledgeobtainedfrom investigation study or instruction. Thereasons which may weigh with the A.O. may beresult of his own investigation and may comefrom any source that he considers reliable." 7.6) It was submitted that this Court inthe case of Hemjay Construciton Co. Pvt Ltd -through Deenaben Yogeshbhai Shah Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2) - in R/SCA No.19392 of 2018, hasheld that "merely because certain materialswhich is otherwise tangible and enables theAssessing Officer to form a belief that theincome chargeable to tax has escapedassessment, formed part of the originalassessment record, per se would not bar theAssessing Officer from reopening theassessment on the basis of such material. Theexpression "tangible material" does not meanthe material alien to the original record.”The Court further observed that “it is not necessary that the Income Tax Officer shouldhold a quasi judicial inquiry before actingunder Section 147. It is enough if he on theinformation received believes in good faiththat the assesee's profits have escapedassessment or have been assessed at a low rate." Ward-2(2) - in R/SCA No.19392 of 2018, hasheld that "merely because certain materialswhich is otherwise tangible and enables theAssessing Officer to form a belief that theincome chargeable to tax has escapedassessment, formed part of the originalassessment record, per se would not bar theAssessing Officer from reopening theassessment on the basis of such material. Theexpression "tangible material" does not meanthe material alien to the original record.”The Court further observed that “it is not necessary that the Income Tax Officer shouldhold a quasi judicial inquiry before actingunder Section 147. It is enough if he on theinformation received believes in good faiththat the assesee's profits have escapedassessment or have been assessed at a low rate." 8.On perusal of the facts of the case as wellas considering submissions made by thelearned advocates for both the sides, it appears that while disposing the objectionsfiled by the petitioner assessee pursuant tothe notice issued under section 148 of theAct for re-opening the Assessment Year 2013-2014, the Assessing Officer has not given anyreason for disposing of the objection. TheAssessing Officer has passed the followingorder on 25.01.2022 while disposing theobjections of the petitioner: “In the instant case, Notice u/s. 148 ofthe Income tax Act, 1961, was issued on30/03/2021 after recording the reasonsas mandated in section 148(2) of the Actand after obtaining necessary approvalu/s 151 or the Act. In response to theNotice u/s.148 of the Act, the assesseefiled return of Income on 13/05/2021.Accordingly, notice u/s.143(2) wasissued on 22/09/2021 along with briefdetails and reasons for reopening of thecaseisenclosedasannexure.Subsequently, the assessee has furnisheda written submissions objecting to thereason vide his mail dated 30/12/2021.The submission of the assessee has beenduly examined. 1. I have requested you to provide me acomplete set of "Reasons Recorded" alongwith copy of sanction of competentauthority u/s.151 of the Income-tax,1961 vide my letter dated 16.09.2021,however, despite the above specificrequest, you have provided me only"Annexure" to the notice u/s.143(3)dated 22.09.2021 only. In this regard a copy of reasonsrecorded along with copy of sanction ofcompetent authority u/s.151 of the income-tax Act,1961 is attached herewith as attachment. 1. Objections to Reasons Recorded: Inthisregard,theassessee'scontention is not acceptable. As theAssessing officer will form a beliefthat income has escaped assessment which is enough for issue of notice u/s.148.The following judgement of the hon'blesupreme Court have been relied upon bythe AO and following facts are alsomentioned by the AO in respect of eachof the judgments. 1. ITO Vs. Purushottam Das Bengur andAnother, 224 ITR 362 (SC)- At the timeof Initiation of the proceedingsu/s.147, the Assessing Officer shouldhave prima facts material relevant tothe assessee. 1. Raymond wollen Mills Ltd. vs.ITO(1999) 36 ITR 34 (SC): the sufficiencyof correctness of the material is not athing to be considered at the reopeningstage.Whileconsideringwhethercommencement of reassessment proceedingwas valid. The court had only to seewhether there was prima facie somematerial on the basis of which thedepartment could reopen the case. Thesufficiency of correctness of thematerials is not a thing to beconsidered at that stage. At the same time once the assessment isreopened you are at liberty to furnishfull particulars of your case and provethe genuineness of the transactionsentered during the F.Y. 2013-14 relevantto the assessment 2014-15 Kindlycooperate and furnish the details, sothat the assessment will be finalized onmerits. Accordingly, the objection filedby the assessee is disposed of asabove.” At the same time once the assessment isreopened you are at liberty to furnishfull particulars of your case and provethe genuineness of the transactionsentered during the F.Y. 2013-14 relevantto the assessment 2014-15 Kindlycooperate and furnish the details, sothat the assessment will be finalized onmerits. Accordingly, the objection filedby the assessee is disposed of asabove.” 9.In view of above facts, when the AssessingOfficer has not provided any reason forOfficer has not provided any reason for rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners, it would be in the interest ofjustice to remand the matter back to theAssessing Officer to pass a detailed ordergiving reasons for disposing of theobjections filed by the assessee. 10.In view of the above, without enteringinto the merits of the matter, the petitionis disposed of by remanding the matter backto the Assessing Officer to pass a detailedorder giving reasons for disposing theobjections filed by the assessee objecting tothe issuance of notice under section 148 ofthe Act for the Assessment year 2013-2014after considering the objections andcontentions raised by the assessee in detail.Such exercise shall be completed within aperiod of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.11.With the aforesaid directions, thepetition is disposed of. The impugned orderdated 25.01.2022 is quashed and set aside.12.Rule is made absolute to the aforesaidextent. No order as to costs. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)