Tarun Modi v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-I, Centralrevenue Building, Near Cad Circle, Kota.2. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Nearcad

[2025:RJ-JP:22490-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7297/2007 Tarun Modi Proprietor of M/s Tarun Overseas, aged about 28years, registered office at 35-A, Talwandi, Kota-326517. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, CentralRevenue Building, Near CAD Circle, Kota.2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, NearCAD Circle, Kota. ----Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHITOrder 28/05/2025 1.This petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.08.2007dismissing the objections filed for re-opening the assessmentproceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort ‘the Act’). 2.The brief facts are that the petitioner proprietorshipconcerned was engaged in export of vegetables and fruits. Thepetitioner for assessment year 2001-02 filed return claimingdeduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The assessment wasfinalised u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 16.03.2004. Anotice was issued u/s 148 of the Act. On supply of the reasons,the petitioner filed objections which were rejected. Hence, thepresent petition. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that re-openingwas on the basis of the findings recorded for assessment year2003-04 that the exports claimed to have been made by thepetitioner through M/s Gemeni Enterprises were bogus and thepetitioner was not entitled to deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. Thecontention is that proceedings for assessment year 2003-04 wereset aside in appeal by the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals)and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (for short ‘the tribunal’) vide order dated13.09.2007. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent on instructions is not in aposition to dispute the factual contention made by the counsel forthe petitioner. Submission is that in the reply, it was inadvertentlypleaded that re-assessment order for assessment year 2001-02has been passed whereas the order pertains to year 2002-2003. 5.From perusal of the reasons for reopening, it is forthcomingthat only basis for reopening the assessment order was findingsrecorded in assessment year 2003-2004, which no longersurvives. Nothing has been brought before us to show that theorder of the tribunal is under challenge. The foundation forreopening having been eroded and no basis survives for issuanceof notice u/s 148 of the Act. Consequently, the impugned orderand the notice are quashed. 6.The writ petition is allowed. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J(AVNEESH JHINGAN),JSimple Kumawat/03