ITO Vs Juzar Mustansir Angoothiwala (ITAT Mumbai)
AO Said There Was No Scrutiny Assessment—His Own Records Said Otherwise: ITAT Quashes Reopening After Four Years
Case Details
The order describes the cross-objection as CO No. 160/Mum/2026 in its body, although its opening page prints CO No. 60/Mum/2026.
The Original Assessment and Reopening
The assessee carried on a readymade garment export business under the name Hind Exports. He filed a return declaring income of ₹1,50,13,380 for Assessment Year 2012–13. The return was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer completed an assessment under section 143(3) on 23 February 2015.
Subsequently, the Investigation Wing supplied information concerning transactions between Hind Exports and Supreme Multitrade Pvt. Ltd., an entity alleged to be a shell company. Referring to transactions aggregating ₹57 lakh, the Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice under section 148 on 30 March 2019.
That date was significant: the notice was issued more than four years after the end of Assessment Year 2012–13. Since a scrutiny assessment had already been completed, the first proviso to the then section 147 became relevant. The officer had to examine whether the alleged escapement of income was attributable to the assessee’s failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the original assessment.
