Allowing the petition the Court held having accepted the entire transaction on the basis of the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act the reopening on the basis of some information was not valid in the eyes of law and was liable to be quashed for the reason that the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind. The reasons were merely recorded by the Assessing Officer on borrowed satisfaction. The source for all the conclusions was the information received from the Deputy Commissioner and that too, based on a search and survey carried out at the residential and business premises in the case of K. Star Corporation. (AY.2011-12)
Kantibhai Dharamshibhai Narola v. ACIT (2021) 436 ITR 302 (Guj.) (HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Sale of land-Borrowed satisfaction-Non application of mind before issue of notice-Notice is held to be not valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]