Sca/4007/2022 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. 4007 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 SANGHANI FOR M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIAand HONOURABLE 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 2014-2015 as well as ordersdated 22.12.2021 and 25.01.2022 disposing of the objections raised by the petitioneragainst the reopening of the assessment. 5.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an individual and derives income from salary from his family concernM/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 2014-2015 on 04.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.15,10,846/-, which had beenprocessed under section 143(1) on 31.07.2014.Later on, the above return was revised on30.11.2015 declaring capital gain on the saleof agricultural land which income beingexempt from income tax, the returned incomeremained the same i.e. Rs.15,10,846/-. 5.2) It is the case of the petitioner that as the petitioner had not received thenotice under section 143(2) for theAssessment Year 2014-2015 within thestipulated time under the Act, theassessment proceedings for the aboveassessment year came to an end and therefore,no proceedings were pending against him. 5.3) The petitioner thereafter received a notice under section 148 of the Act dated30.03.2021 issued by the respondent No.1stating that he had reason to believe thatincome for Assessment Year 2014-2015 hadescaped assessment. 5.2) It is the case of the petitioner that as the petitioner had not received thenotice under section 143(2) for theAssessment Year 2014-2015 within thestipulated time under the Act, theassessment proceedings for the aboveassessment year came to an end and therefore,no proceedings were pending against him. 5.3) The petitioner thereafter received a notice under section 148 of the Act dated30.03.2021 issued by the respondent No.1stating that he had reason to believe thatincome for Assessment Year 2014-2015 hadescaped assessment. 5.4) In response to the above noticeunder section 148, the petitioner had againuploaded the return of income on 13.05.2021declaring total income of Rs. 15,09,060/-. Asthe copy of reasons recorded was not providedto the petitioner, he had requested therespondent to provide the same vide hisletter dated 16.09.2021, which was dispatchedthrough RPAD on 21.09.2021. It is the caseof the petitioner that thereafter, therespondent No. 1 had uploaded a notice undersection 143(2) dated 22.09.2021 along with which an Annexure was annexed containingextracts of reasons, where even the date ofrecording of reasons has not been mentioned. 5.5) The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening theassessment under section 147 of the Act readas under : “1. Brief details of the assessee’scase: the assessee has filed return ofIncome for the A.Y. 2014-15 declaringtotal Income of Rs. 15,10,846/- 2. Brief details of Informationcollected/ received by the AO: In thiscase, information was reflected onInsight Portal. As per informationuploaded, it is stated that the Theassessee has entered into bogus subcontract with Sadbhav Enginnering Ltd.for AY 2014-15 amounting to Rs.21,00,00,000/-. It is noticed that the investment madeby assessee has not matched withassessee income profile and also notedthat said investment has not reflectedin assessee's books of accounts.Further, verifications required in thiscase 3.Basis of forming reasons to believeand details of escapement of Income: From the information available onInsight Portal stated that while goingthrough details available on ITBA Efiling Portal, is found that theassessee has made bogus sub contractwith Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. For AY2014-15 amounting to Rs. 42,00,00,000/-during FY 2013-14. Assessee had filedreturn of income AY 2014-15 totalIncome of Rs. 15,10,846/- which does notcommensurate with the transaction madein bank account. 4. Applicability of the provisions ofsection 147/151 to the facts of thecase: After analyzing the above informationprovided by Investigation Wing the datamade available in the ITS details of theassessee and since, the assessee hasfiled the return of income for A. Y.2014-15 prima facie, I have reason toconclude that the assessee had failed todisclose fully and truly all theparticulars of his income and incomechargeable to tax has escaped assessmentby an amount of Rs. 21, 00, 00,000/-.While forwarding the above information,Investigation Wing had also provided therelevant portion of Investigation. In view of the above, I have reason tobelieve that income chargeable to taxhas escaped assessment within themeaning of section 147 of the 1.T. Actfor A.Y. 2014-15 by an amount of morethan Rs. 1 lakh and I am satisfied thatthis is a fit case for re-opening theassessment for A.Y. 2014-15. In this case, more than four years havenot lapsed from the end of theassessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issuenotice u/s.148 of the Act is beingobtained from Pr. Commissioner of IncomeTax-1, Ahmedabad as per the provisionsof Section 151 of the Act.” In view of the above, I have reason tobelieve that income chargeable to taxhas escaped assessment within themeaning of section 147 of the 1.T. Actfor A.Y. 2014-15 by an amount of morethan Rs. 1 lakh and I am satisfied thatthis is a fit case for re-opening theassessment for A.Y. 2014-15. In this case, more than four years havenot lapsed from the end of theassessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issuenotice u/s.148 of the Act is beingobtained from Pr. Commissioner of IncomeTax-1, Ahmedabad as per the provisionsof Section 151 of the Act.” 5.6) The petitioner had thereafteruploaded the objections to reasons recordedin his letters dated 12.10.2021 for both theAssessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015,however, due to a technical glitch in thePortal, the letter dated 12.10.2021 relatingto Assessment Year 2014-2015 in pdf formatcould not be uploaded though letter relatingto Assessment Year 2013-2014 was uploaded.The respondent No.2 finally uploaded completereasons recorded along with order disposingof objections on 22.12.2021. 5.7) It is the case of the petitionerthat upon going through the order disposingof objection dated 22.12.2021, the petitionercame to know that his objections were nottransmitted to the respondent due to technical glitch in the Portal, andtherefore, he again uploaded the objectionsvide his letter dated 30.12.2021 enclosingtherewithhisearlierletterdated 12.10.2021. 5.8) It is the case of the petitioner thatthereafter respondent No.2 has passed theorder disposing of the objections dated25.01.2022 without adverting to theobjections raised by the petitioner.Subsequently, the respondent No.2 has issueda notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 31.01.2022 calling for details in orderto complete the assessment proceedings. 5.9) The petitioner has therefore, approached this Court by filing the presentpetition challenging the action of therespondents. 6.Learned advocate Mr. Umaidsingh Bhati for thepetitioner submitted that the notice undersection 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 is aninvalid notice because the reasons recordedwere based on vague, inchoate and incorrectinformation, and that too at the direction ofthe Superior Authority [DGIT (System)]. Theabove notice for re-assessment has beenissued on mere suspicion alone to makefurther verification. Therefore, the impugnednotice is wholly bad in law, illegal andwithout jurisdiction. 6.1) It was submitted that the impugnednotice and the impugned orders disposing offthe objections are illegal, bad-in-law andwithout jurisdiction because conditionsprecedent for reopening under provisions ofsection 147 and 151 of the Act are notsatisfied. 6.2) It was submitted that section 147 ofthe Act empowers the Assessing Officer toassess or reassess income chargeable to taxwhich he has reason to believe has escapedassessment. The existence of a reason tobelieve is an essential condition forexercising the power to issue notice undersection 148 of the Act and reopen anassessment. 6.3) Referring to the reasons recorded,it was submitted that it is the case of therespondent that the petitioner has enteredinto a bogus sub contract amounting to Rs. 21Crore with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. duringthe Financial Year 2013-2014 relevant to theAssessment year 2014-2015. On the basis ofthe above piece of information, therespondent No. 1 observed that investmentmade by the petitioner is not reflected inhis books of account and the same also did 6.3) Referring to the reasons recorded,it was submitted that it is the case of therespondent that the petitioner has enteredinto a bogus sub contract amounting to Rs. 21Crore with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. duringthe Financial Year 2013-2014 relevant to theAssessment year 2014-2015. On the basis ofthe above piece of information, therespondent No. 1 observed that investmentmade by the petitioner is not reflected inhis books of account and the same also did not match with his income profile, hencefurther verification' is required. It wassubmitted that the information at thecommand of the respondent No.1 at the time ofrecording of reasons is vague and inchoateand therefore not tangible or credible.Further,theinformationisitselfinconsistent as at one place it indicated theamount of bogus subcontract is Rs. 21 Crore,while at another place amount is mentioned asRs. 42 Crore. 6.4) It was submitted that the AssessingOfficer did not conduct any enquiry,investigation or verification to eliminatethe inconsistency about the quantum of theamount i.e. Rs. 21 Crores or Rs. 42 Crores,in the information before recording thereasons and concluded that the petitioner hasfailed to disclose fully and truly all theparticulars of his income and income has escaped assessment by an amount of Rs. 21Crores, without providing any basis. 6.5) It was submitted that the AssessingOfficer has stated in the reasons that afurther verification is required in this casewhich would tantamount to conducting fishingor roving enquiry for which reassessment isnot permissible as per the settled positionof the law as propounded in the decision ofthis Court in case of PCIT v/s ManzilDineshkumar Shah reported in [2018] 406 ITR326 (Guj) and in the decision of Bombay HighCourt in case of Precilion Holdings Ltd. v/sDCIT reported in [20191 412 ITR 43 (Bom). 6.6) 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 Sadbhav Engineering Limited by the InvestigationWing, nor has any such report been made partof the reasons. It was submitted that therewas neither credible information nor tangiblematerial before the Assessing Officer at thetime of recording of reasons, while reasonsought to be based on some tangible materialwhich is a mandatory requirement under theprovisions of section 147 of the Act. It wassubmitted that the reasons should be self-explanatory or self-evident and they mustspeak for themselves because they are subjectto judicial scrutiny. It was submitted thatit is a settled position of the law that thereasons are required to be read as they wererecorded by the Assessing Officer and nosubstitution or deletion is permissible. Itwas submitted that it is for the AssessingOfficer to disclose and open his mind throughreasons recorded by him and the reasonsrecorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness andreasons provide link between evidence andconclusion and in the event, the reasonsrecorded are challenged, the Assessing Officer must be able to justify the samebased on material available on record. Itwas 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 suchsubmission reliance was placed on the decision in case of Hindustan Lever Limitedv/s R. B. Wadkar reported in (2004) 268 ITR332 (Bom). It was submitted that the cruciallink between information available to therespondent and formation of belief was absentin this case, which is necessary even in case Officer must be able to justify the samebased on material available on record. Itwas 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 suchsubmission reliance was placed on the decision in case of Hindustan Lever Limitedv/s R. B. Wadkar reported in (2004) 268 ITR332 (Bom). It was submitted that the cruciallink between information available to therespondent and formation of belief was absentin this case, which is necessary even in case where the return of income has been acceptedunder section 143(1) of the Act. 6.7) Learned advocate Mr. Bhati submitted that the petitioner has finally uploadedobjections to reasons recorded dated12.10.2021 on 30.12.2021, which earlier couldnot be uploaded on 13.10.2021 due totechnical glitch in Income Tax Portal. 6.8) It was submitted that notice undersection 148 of the Act for the Assessmentyear 2014-2015 at the instance of a SuperiorAuthority l.e. DGIT(System) was similar tonotice under section 148 for the AssessmentYear 2013-2014 because the notices for the both the assessment years were issuedsimultaneouslyonsimilarinformationcommunicated along-with the directions by theDGIT(System) as mentioned in the reasonsrecorded. 6.9) It was submitted that the petitioner never entered into any contract orsubcontract with Sadbhav Engineering Limited,which deals in big infrastructural projects,while petitioner has always been confined toarea of activities related to manufacturingand trading of 'bidis' and related items. 6.10) It was submitted that the petitionerhas not made any investment for the purposeof manufacturing and trading and therefore,the declaration of any investment etc. inbooks of account and consequently, in thereturn of income does not arise. 6.11) It was submitted that there was acomplete lack of application of mind instating that the returned income of thepetitioner does not commensurate with thetransaction made in the bank account since whole contract receipt as such cannot beequal to the net profit or taxable income.Relevant expenses and allowances as providedunder the Act has to be deducted from thecontract receipts to arrive at taxableincome. It was further submitted that thoughabout 6 years have elapsed as on 30.03.2021from the end of the Assessment year 2014-2015, however, it is mentioned by therespondent No.1 in the reasons recorded that4 years have not elapsed. 6.12) It was submitted that the respondentcould not establish that the facts stated inreasons recorded are correct and therefore,has proceeded on fundamentally wrong facts tocome 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 2014-2015 is invalid as held in decisions of BombayHigh Court in case of Ankita A. Choksey v/sITO reported in (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bom) and in 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 availableby 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 of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Chhabil DassAgarwal 357 ITR 357 and in case of the Shri in 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 availableby 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 of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Chhabil DassAgarwal 357 ITR 357 and in case of the Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Versus Union of 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 tolaw. 7.2) It was submitted that as per theinformation reflected on Insight Portal, the petitioner has entered into bogus subcontract with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. for Assessment Year 2014-2015 amounting to Rs.21,00,00,000/- and investment made by thepetitioner has not matched with petitioner’sincome profile and also investment is notreflected in petitioner's books of accountsand the petitioner filed return of income forAssessment Year 2014-2015 of Rs. 15,10,846/- which does not commensurate with thetransaction made in bank account and therefore, the Assessing Officer had thereason to conclude that the petitioner hadfailed to disclose fully and truly all theparticulars of his income and incomechargeable 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 andrecords and subsequent findings arose out ofinformation gathered from the system, thecase was reopened as per the law after recording 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 tobelieve. At the stage of issue of noticeunder section 148, the only question iswhether there was relevant material on which reasonable person could have formed therequisite 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 the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence orconclusion.Whethermaterialwouldconclusively prove escapement of income isnot the concern at the stage of issue of reasonable person could have formed therequisite 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 the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained 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 suchincome has escaped assessment. It wassubmitted that the justification of Assessing Officer’s belief is not to be judged from the standards 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 wassubmitted 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. Itincludesknowledgeobtainedfrominvestigation study or instruction. The reasons which may weigh with the A.O. may be result 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 the income 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 notnecessary that the Income Tax Officer shouldhold a quasi judicial inquiry before actingunder Section 147. It is enough if he on the information received believes in good faiththat the assesee's profits have escapedassessment or have been assessed at a lowrate." 8.On perusal of the facts of the case as wellas the submissions made by the learnedas the submissions made by the learned advocates for both the sides, it appears thatwhile disposing the objections filed by thepetitioner assessee pursuant to the noticeissued under section 148 of the Act for re-opening the Assessment Year 2014-2015, the Assessing Officer has not given any reasonfor disposing of the objection. The AssessingOfficer has passed the following order on22.12.2021 while disposing the objections ofthe petitioner: “In the instance case, Notice u/s.148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 wasissued on 30/03/2021 after recordingthe reasons as mandated in section148(2) of the Act and afterobtaining necessary approval u/s.151 of the Act. In response to theNotice u/s.148 of the Act, theassessee filed return of Income on13/05/2021.Accordingly,noticeu/s.143(2) was issued on 22/09/2021along with brief details and reasonsfor reopening of the case isenclosed as annexure. Subsequently,the assessee has furnished a writtensubmissions objecting to the reasonvide his mail dated 13/10/2021. Thesubmission of the assessee has beenduly examined. “In the instance case, Notice u/s.148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 wasissued on 30/03/2021 after recordingthe reasons as mandated in section148(2) of the Act and afterobtaining necessary approval u/s.151 of the Act. In response to theNotice u/s.148 of the Act, theassessee filed return of Income on13/05/2021.Accordingly,noticeu/s.143(2) was issued on 22/09/2021along with brief details and reasonsfor reopening of the case isenclosed as annexure. Subsequently,the assessee has furnished a writtensubmissions objecting to the reasonvide his mail dated 13/10/2021. Thesubmission of the assessee has beenduly examined. Your objection on reopening of anassessment is not valid, the AO willform a belief that income hasescaped assessment which is enoughfor issue of notice u/s.148. At thesame time once the assessment isreopened you are at liberty tofurnish full particulars of yourcase and prove the genuineness ofthe transactions entered during theF.Y. 2013-14 relevant to theassessment year 2014-15. Kindlycooperate and furnish the details,so that the assessment will befinalized on merits. Accordingly,the objection filed by the assesseeis disposed of as above.” 9.Thereafter, on 25.01.2022, the AssessingOfficer passed the following order disposingof the objections: 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 as above. 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 as above. Assessing Officer has not provided any reasonfor rejecting the objections raised by thepetitioners, 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. 11.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 2014-2015after considering the objections andcontentions raised by the assessee in detail.Such exercise shall be completed within aperiod of 12 weeks from the date of receiptof copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. The impugned ordersdated 22.12.2021 and 25.01.2022 are 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)