Allowing the petition the Court held that the Assessing Officer had recorded reasons of reopening merely on borrowed satisfaction. Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to arrive at conclusion that there was any failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. On facts, impugned reopening notice issued against assessee was unjustified and same was to be set aside. (AY. 2011-12)
Kantibhai Dharamshibhai Narola v. DCIT (2021) 436 ITR 302 / 125 taxmann.com 348 / 278 Taxman 322 / 203 DTR 356/ 321 CTR 595(Guj.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Capital gains-Undisclosed investments-Sale of land-Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 45, 69, 148, Art. 226]