ACIT Vs Mukesh Manubhai Shah (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against the Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Mukesh Manubhai Shah concerning reopening of assessment for AY 2019-20 under Section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Gujarat High Court had quashed the notice dated 30.03.2025 under Section 148A(1), the order dated 19.06.2025 under Section 148A and the consequential notice dated 19.06.2025 reopening the assessment. The petitioner had filed his return for AY 2019-20 declaring total income of Rs.33,98,400/-. The reopening proceedings were based on information supplied by SBI concerning debit transactions of Rs.18,70,59,704/- and credit transactions of Rs.18,69,71,900/-, aggregating to Rs.37,40,31,604/-. The petitioner explained that the transactions were undertaken through banking channels, involved no cash deposits and related to borrowings and repayments, and furnished details of the parties and transactions. The Gujarat High Court found that the Assessing Officer had gone beyond Section 148A(1) by undertaking a roving inquiry when the information consisted only of consolidated debit and credit entries and the petitioner had furnished details of the transactions. Relying upon its decision in Vasuki Global Industrial Ltd., the Court held that the information suggesting escapement of income required verification and that no roving inquiry was permissible. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the SLP, with delay condoned, and stated that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Read HC Judgment in this case: Gujarat HC Quashes Section 148A Reopening Over Roving Inquiry
Cases Discussed
- Vasuki Global Industrial Ltd. vs. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, [2025] 180 taxmann.com 16 (Gujarat)
- Smt. Vasanthi Ramdas Pai vs. Income-tax Officer, [2024] 159 taxmann.com 392 (Karnataka)
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Having heard Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
3. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
