IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
\nORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
\nWRIT PETITION NO. 1641 OF 2018<\/p>\n
Dulraj U. Jain \u2026.Petitioner<\/p>\n
V\/s.<\/p>\n
Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax and Ors. \u2026.Respondents<\/p>\n
Mr. Prakul Khurana a\/w. Mr. Pankaj Jain i\/by. P.D. Jain &
\nCo., Advocate for the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Mr. N.C. Mohanty, Advocate for the respondents.<\/p>\n
CORAM :- M.S. SANKLECHA, &
\nSANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.<\/p>\n
DATE :- 6TH JULY, 2018.
\nP.C. :-<\/p>\n
1. Heard. Rule.<\/p>\n
2. This petition challenges notice dated 31st March, 2017 issued under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 seeking to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessment was earlier completed by way of intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. <\/p>\n
The reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment proceeds on information received from Deputy Director of Investigation. The information received from the Assistant Director of Income-Tax dated 24th March, 2017 referred to certain transactions as suspicious transactions and called upon the Assessing Officer to verify the transactions as there is a likelihood that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. <\/p>\n
The reasons in support of the impugned notice do not indicate any application of mind and\/or further processing of the information to come to a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Infact, it proceeds on the basis that transactions are suspicious. <\/p>\n
Further, the reasons also do not specify, prima-facie, the quantum of tax which has escaped assessment but merely states that it would be atleast be Rs.1,00,000\/-. Prima-facie, we are of the view that the reasons recorded do not indicate reasonable belief of the Assessing Officer himself to issue the impugned notice. Thus, prima-facie, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
3. Accordingly, till the final disposal of this petition, there shall be interim stay of the impugned notice dated 31st March, 2017 issued under Section 148 of the Act.<\/p>\n
4. Mr. Mohanty, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service of notice.<\/p>\n
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Further, the reasons also do not specify, prima-facie, the quantum of tax which has escaped assessment but merely states that it would be atleast be Rs.1,00,000\/-. Prima-facie, we are of the view that the reasons recorded do not indicate reasonable belief of the Assessing Officer himself to issue the impugned notice<\/p>\n