Case Law Details
Vapi Infrastructure and Industrial Township LLP Vs ITO (Bombay High Court)
Petitioner vide a letter dated 21st October, 2021 filed its objection for re-opening. In the objection, Petitioner specifically has mentioned that specific queries were raised during assessment proceedings for the loans provided, details have been provided to the assessing officer who had also independently issued notices under Section 133(6) of the Act to which third parties had replied and provided the required documents explaining their identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the loans provided and after being satisfied the assessment order came to be passed. Hence, it was not correct to say that the source of loans remained unexplained and the reopening was not permissible as it was only due to change of opinion. In the order dated 22nd December, 2021, disposing the objections, which is also impugned in the Petition, Respondent No.1 has conveniently remained silent on the Petitioner’s submission about queries being raised during the assessment proceedings and issuance of notices under Section 133(6) of the Act. In the Affidavit in Reply to the Petition, of course, Respondent No.1 has admitted that notices under Section 133(6) of the Act were issued and confirmation from loan providers were obtained during the assessment proceedings.
Having considered the Petition with the documents annexed thereto, Affidavit in Reply and having heard the Counsels, we are satisfied that re-opening proposed is purely based on change of opinion and the entire issue which is the subject matter of the reasons recorded has been raised during the assessment proceedings, response obtained from Petitioner and Petitioner’s explanation has been accepted by the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer also, we would say, was satisfied with the credit worthiness and details provided by third party lenders. Mr. Sharma submitted that in the Assessment Order this issue has not been discussed. That does not help the cause of Respondents because it is settled law that once query has been raised and answers have been given, even if the assessment order is silent, the Assessing Officer is supposed to have considered the issue and is deemed to have been satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee. Moreover, in this case, notice under Section 133(6) of the Act has also been issued to third party lenders who have, as admitted in the Affidavit in reply, given confirmation about the transaction and credit worthiness.
In these circumstances, we will have to note that notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 31st March, 2021 impugned in this Petition has to be set aside and consequently Order dated 22nd December, 2021 also has to go. Ordered accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
