V/S.assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 19(3 v. Walve For

Digitallysigned byMEERAMEERAMAHESHMAHESHJADHAVJADHAVDate:2021.11.1615:06:23+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO.3293 OF 2019WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.318 OF 2019 Rajendra Singh Karnawat ….Petitioner V/s.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(3) …Respondent---- None for PetitionerMr. Sham V. Walve for Respondent ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ DATED : 15[th] NOVEMBER 2021 P.C. : 1In the absence of petitioner’s counsel, we have considered the petitionand the documents annexed thereto with the assistance of Mr. Walveappearing for respondent. 2Petitioner has approached this court impugning a notice dated 28[th]March 2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act)calling upon petitioner to show cause as to why petitioner’s income shouldnot be re-assessed for the A.Y.-2012-2013 since the Assessing Officer hadreasons to believe that petitioner’s income chargeable to tax for A.Y.-2012-2013 has escaped the assessment within the meaning of Section 148 of theAct. In response to the notice, petitioner had filed objections. Theseobjections have been rejected by an order dated 21[st] September 2019, copywhereof is at Exhibit F to the petition. Even this order has been impugnedin the petition. 3Petitioner had filed return of income for A.Y.-2012-2013 on 21[st] September 2012 declaring total income of Rs.33,31,497/- which was, on 6[th]May 2013, processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. 4Subsequently, Assessing Officer received information from ACIT,Central Circle-3, Jaipur vide letter dated 8[th] March 2019 wherein it is statedsearch and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was carried out inthe case of one Ramesh Manihar Group on 7[th] January 2016 and it has cometo light that Ramesh Manihar Group was indulging in cash loan financing ona large scale. During the search and seizure carried out in Ramesh ManiharGroup, it is also found that petitioner had advanced unaccounted loans incash totaling to Rs.13,20,00,000/- and this unaccounted loan was notoffered for tax. It is also been found that petitioner has also earnedunaccounted interest thereon, which also requires to be taxed. This thebasis of forming reason to believe that there has been escapement ofincome. 5Indisputably, the assessment is being opened four years afterassessment year and, therefore, the proviso of Section 147 of the Act willapply. We are satisfied with the reasons to believe to form an opinion thatthere has been escapement of income and hence we do not wish to interfere.6Petition dismissed. 7We shall, however, clarify that we have not expressed any opinion onthe merits of the case. This order is without prejudice to petitioner’s rightsand contentions which they are at liberty to raise before the concernedauthority. 8In view of the dismissal of the petition, interim application no.318 of 2019 does not survive and accordingly dismissed. (AMIT B. BORKAR, J) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)