Nickunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court considered a writ petition challenging a notice dated 7 December 2010 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06, along with the order dated 12 June 2012 rejecting the petitioner’s objections. The petitioner had originally filed its return declaring an income of ₹43.05 lakhs, and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), determining the income at ₹50.36 lakhs. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the basis of information obtained during survey proceedings under Section 133A and scrutiny proceedings for Assessment Year 2008-09, which allegedly indicated that purchases made over several years were from non-existent or bogus bill providers.
The recorded reasons stated that the petitioner had shown purchases from suppliers who were later found to be bogus billers and that survey findings strengthened evidence regarding bogus purchase transactions. A chart annexed to the reasons identified purchases during Assessment Year 2005-06 from Rahul Industries amounting to ₹3,81,795 and Symphony Metalam Pvt. Ltd. amounting to ₹46,60,056.
The petitioner objected to the reopening on the grounds that the notice had been issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without any failure on its part to make a true and full disclosure of material facts, as required by the proviso to Section 147. It also contended that all relevant material had been produced during the original assessment under Section 143(3), including details of purchases from Symphony Metalam Pvt. Ltd., and therefore the reopening amounted to a mere change of opinion. The petitioner further argued that the recorded reasons did not expressly state that there had been any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
