Siddhi Corporation Vs DCIT (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed since name of the petitioner is not appearing in any of the information and documents which were found during course of search. According, petition is allowed.
Facts- By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20.4.2021 and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 20.8.2022 and the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 23.8.2022 issued pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, reported in [2022] 286 Taxman 183 (SC).
Conclusion- Held that in the facts of the present case also, considering the material on record in form of the reasons recorded and the objections raised by the petitioner which are dealt with in the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, it is apparent that firstly, the name of the petitioner was wrongly stated in the reasons recorded, secondly, regarding the explanation given by the petitioner that commission was paid by the petitioner and no loans or advances were made by the petitioner regarding the transaction of Rs. 59,26,227/-, the respondent Assessing Officer failed to consider the same and ignored the same by giving a flimsy reason in the impugned order rejecting the objections. Thus, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 dated 20.4.2021 and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 20.8.2022 for the A.Y. 2013-14 are hereby quashed and set-aside.
