The petitioner company, Zaveri and Company Private Limited is engaged within the business of producing and trading in jewelry, bullion trading, trading, and speculation in commodities, shares, and securities, units of mutual funds and derivatives and trading in SEZ unit also as gold and silver refinery business. After the scrutiny, assessment having been undertaken on various points and after issuing the show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer had framed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the said Act on 28.03.2014. Thereafter the petitioner received a notice under section 148 on 28.03.2017 seeking re-opening of the assessment for the A.Y. 2012-13 on the bottom of the alleged accommodation entries obtained by the petitioner company, as revealed during the search proceedings just in case of 1 Bhanwarlal Jain Group.
The explanations recorded for reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13, because the office of the respondent had received the knowledge from the office of DDIT that the petitioner company was identified together of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entries unearthed during search proceedings conducted just in case of Sanjay Shah and Jignesh Shah of Ahmedabad, which had resulted into the appropriation of unaccounted cash of Rs. 19.37 crores alongside the incriminating digital also as documentary pieces of evidence. The concealed record of unaccounted cash, synchronized trading, proving bogus LTCG in various BSE listed scrips, and transport of such cash through angadiyas was found to be sustained secretly Tally file.
Advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue said that as per the settled legal position, two conditions need to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer invokes his jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the said Act after the expiry of 4 years from the top of the relevant assessment year – firstly, that the Assessing Officer having reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the concerned assessment year, and secondly, such escapement of assessment was because of failure on the part of the assessee to form the return under section 139, or in response to a notice issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 142 or Section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all the fabric facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year.
It was further added that thus far because the case of this petitioner cares, the assessment for the A.Y. 2012-13 is sought to be reopened by the Assessing Officer under section 147 or 148 of the said Act, on his having received a satisfaction that the income for the said assessment year had escaped assessment because of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. Whether the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment or not, couldn't be considered at this stage and no conclusive opinion might be rendered at now of your time when the assessment/reassessment has not even started. “Mr. M.R. Bhatt has rightly drawn the eye of this Court to the choice just in case of Mehrunnisa Mohamed Fazal Maniar versus tax Officer (supra), during which the proceedings under section 147/148 initiated by the Assessing Officer against the petitioners on the idea of fresh material delivered to his notice in respect of an equivalent search proceedings conducted under section 132 just in case of Jignesh Shah on 11.09.2018, were challenged, and therefore the Court vide the order dated 20.01.2021 has dismissed the said petitions, after considering the similar contentions as raised within the present petition,” the court said.