GARVIT DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21125 of 2019 ========================================================== GARVIT DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ========================================================== Appearance: MR OMKAR C DAVE(2003) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

Date : 09/03/2021

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA) 1. By filing this writ application  under Article  226, the writ applicant   seeks   to   challenge   the   notice   dated   31.03.2019 issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) seeking to reopen the applicant’s income tax assessment for the A.Y 2012­13. 2. The brief facts leading to file the present writ application can be summarized as under: 2.1 The writ applicant – assessee Company filed its return of Income for the A.Y. 2012­13 on 07.02.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 1,75,310/­ and  assessment  under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26.03.2015.

Page 1 of 19

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER 2.2 The Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment under Section 147 by issuing impugned notice dated 31.03.2019 under Section 148 of the Act. 2.3 At the request of the writ applicant, reasons recorded have been furnished to the writ applicant on 17.05.2019, which reads as under : REASONS RECORDED : 1. The assessee Company has its return of income for AY 2012­13 on 07.02.2013 declaring total income at Rs.1,75, 310/­.   The   assessment   u/s   143(3)   was   completed   on 26.03.2015. 2. In this case, an information was received from the “DDIT (Inv.) Unit 4(2), Mumbai vide letter No. “DDIT(Inv.)­ 4(2)/ Information/ABR/2018­19 dated 15.03.2019. In this case,   an   information   has   been   received   that   during   the investigation of the below mentioned assessee, it is found from the. statements of reported account No.23105133390, 23105133404,

23105138686,

23105138937

and 23105138988 with Standard Chartered Bank for the reported entities, prima­facie it is seen that the transactions are seen as these accounts are used by these entities for layering of funds. Further, analysis of the above bank statements vis­a­ vis ITRs filed by reported entities was done and the findings are tabulated below:­ S r Name of the assessee PAN Total Credits in Bank A/c during A.Y. 2012­13 Total turnover during A.Y.2012­ 13 Total income for A.Y. 2012­13 Year of last ITR filed by the entity 1 Garvit Diamond Pvt. Ltd AADCG8 823H 51 L 1,78,77,90, 731 1,75,31 0 2018­19 3. The   reported   entities   are   showing   meager   incomes compared to turnovers  which is not commensurate with the profit in their line of business. No Tax, Audit Report has been filed for all the reported entities, eve en though the turnover in all the entities is well above of Rs.60 Lakhs threshold. Thus, the assessee company is primarily engaged in providing entries only and thus the edits in the bank accounts of these entities are found explained. Page 2 of 19

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER 3.1 During   the   year   under   consideration,   the   assessee company has credited total amount of Rs.51,00,000/­ in its bank accounts held with Standard Chartered Bank. As from the   DDIIT  (Inv),     Mumbai,     it  has  bean  established   that amount of Rs,51,00,000/­ is mere accommodation entry and the assessee is beneficiary of the said amount. 4. In view of above facts/material available on records and after analyzing the same, I have reason to believe that income   of   the   assessee   to   the   extent   of   51,00,000/­   has escaped assessment for A.Y.2012­13 within the meaning of Section 147 of the I.T. Act. 5. Applicability of the provisions of section 147/151 to the facts of the case. In this case a return of income was filed for the year under consideration and regular assessment u/s.143(3) was made on 26.03.2015. Since, 4 years from the end of the relevant year has expired in this case, the requirement to initiate   proceedings   u/s.   147   are   reason   to   believe   that income   for   the   year   under   consideration   has   escaped assessment because of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the assessment year under consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that reasons to believe that income has   escaped   assessment   for   the   year   under   consideration have been recorded above (refer paragraphs 2 to 4 above). In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction   to   issue   notice   u/s.   148   has   been   obtained separately from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as per th provisions of section 151 of the Act. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s. 148 been obtained separately from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as per Provisions of section 151 of the Act.” 2.4 The   writ   applicant   raised   the   objections   vide   its communication dated 04.07.2019, mainly on the following issues on facts and law: Page 3 of 19

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER (i) Reasons  were   not   recorded   before   issuance   of notice; (ii) Approval of Principal CIT, in terms of Section 151 of the Act is not obtained; (iii)   No failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly   all   material   facts   necessary   for   the assessment; (iii) Reopening is based on “borrowed satisfaction”. 2.5   The objections came to be rejected by the respondent vide order dated 30.08.2019.

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER previous assessment proceedings made under Section 143(3) of the Act, the notices were served under Section 142(1) and in response to the notices, the assessee had furnished details of   all   banks   and   statement   for   the   period   1.4.2011   to 31.3.2012 and also  furnished the details of sundry debtors, loan advances, books of accounts etc. , and based on the material submitted, the Assessing Officer concluded that the credit transactions entered into by the assessee were genuine. Therefore, at the time of filing the return of income as well as during   the   assessment   proceedings,   all   the   material   facts having   been   disclosed.    In   this   circumstances,   the   pre­ condition for reopening in the case of beyond 4 years having not been satisfied as there was no failure on the part of the assesse to disclose the facts truly and fully.

5.2 It was pointed out that the respondent authority failed to comply with the provisions of Section 148(2) of the Act, as before issuing the notice, the Assessing Officer should record his reasons for reopening of the assessment. Referring to the letter, the learned counsel invited the attention of this Court that no date being mentioned on the reasons recorded, which evident that reasons for issuing notice under Section 148 of the   Act   were   not   recorded   before   issuing   the   notice   and therefore, notice lacks validity. 5.3 It   was  further   pointed   out   that,  the   reopening   of   the assessment is beyond the period of 4 years, the approval by the competent authority is required to reopen the assessment. Page 5 of 19

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER In   this   regard,   the   learned   counsel   pointed   out   that   the revenue failed to produce the copy of the sanction accorded by the authority nor was it provided along with the copy of the reasons recorded. Therefore, there is no approval in terms of Section 151 of the Act and on this ground, the notice is bad in law and required to be quashed and set aside. 5.4 It was further contended that the Assessing Officer  has acted mechanically on the basis of vague information and no further   inquiries   being   made   by   the   Assessing   Officer,   to come to  any independent  conclusion that  the income has escaped assessment. Therefore, reopening based on the third party   satisfaction   cannot   be   sustained   in   law   and   the proceedings initiated on borrowed satisfaction required to be quashed and set aside. 6. In view of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the writ application submitted that, the impugned notice as well as the order of disposing off the objections are bad, illegal   and   without   jurisdiction   and   therefore,   the   same deserve to be quashed and set aside and accordingly, the writ application may be allowed. 7. On the other hand, Mrs. Kalpana K. Raval,  learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue has vehemently opposed the writ application, contending that the revenue is justified in reopening the assessment for the year under consideration. She has urged that  Assessing Officer has reason to believe that   the   income   has   escaped   assessment   as   the   primary Page 6 of 19

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, it was found that the amount reflected in the bank account were used by the assessee for layering of funds   and after independent   inquiries   and   upon   due   satisfaction,   the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that the credit amount of Rs.51,00,000/­   is   mere   an   accommodation   entry   and   the assessee   is   the   beneficiaries   of   the   transactions.   In   this circumstance, when at the relevant time, the assessee did not disclose   the   true  facts   of   the  transactions,    the   Assessing Officer  having reason to reopen the assessment. 8. In view of the above contentions, the learned counsel for the revenue   urged   that   the   writ   application   may   not   be entertained.

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER income, profits or gains chargeable to tax had been under­ assessed   or   escaped   assessment,   and     (ii)   the   Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that such escapement or under­assessment was occasioned by reason of the omission of failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 149 or to  disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that year. 11. We take the notice of the fact that the assessee company filed its  return  of   income   for  the  A.Y.   2012­13   on  07.02.2013 declaring total income of Rs.1,75,310/­  and the assessment under   Section   143(3)  of   the   Act   was   completed   on 26.03.2015. The case of assessee is sought to be reopened on the basis of information received from the Investigating Wing, Mumbai,   wherein,   it   was   stated   that,   the   agency   had scrutinized selected bank  account numbers  of the assessee, maintained with Standard Chartered Bank and prima­facie it was found that the transactions reflected in the accounts used by the assessee for layering of funds and the credit entries of Rs.51,00,000/­ is mere an accommodation entries and this credit entries remained unexplained. 12. After   careful   examination   of   the   reasons   recorded   and materials on record,  it appears that the Assessing Officer has verified   the   information   with   regard   to   suspicious   cash transactions and upon analysis of the bank statements, it was seen that compare to turnover, the total income was very less, which in his opinion, was not commensurates with the profit. Page 8 of 19

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER The Assessing Officer has further observed that in the absence of   tax   audit   report,   the   turnover   was   also   above Rs.60,00,000/­. In this backdrop, the Assessing Officer, has come   to   the   conclusion   that   the   assessee   is   engaged   in providing   accommodation   entries   only   and   the   credits   of Rs.51,00,000/­ in the bank account was found unexplained and assessee is the beneficiaries of the transactions. After analysis of the reasons, with respect to formation of belief with regard to escaped income, we find that at the relevant time during the course of earlier assessment proceedings, the true   facts  with   regard  to  cash   transactions   as   referred   to above, had not been disclosed truly and fully.  From bare perusal of the reasons recorded, it appears that the Assessing Officer could be said to have applied his independent mind to the information received from the concerned department and after being duly satisfied, he reached to the conclusion that the assessee failed to disclose the true facts with regard to alleged cash   transactions,   which   found   to   be   an accommodation   entries   and   the   assessee   being   the beneficiaries, the amount has escaped assessment. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it could be said that after framing of the assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Act,  tangible material came into the hands of the Assessing Officer through the investigation wing and upon perusal of the same, he made independent inquiries and applied his mind and upon due satisfaction, he formed an opinion that, the income has escaped assessment. Page 9 of 19

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER 14. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel that at the   final   assessment   proceedings,   all   the   material   facts including   the  bank   statements,  books   of   accounts,  credit transactions   were   furnished   and   same  was   thoroughly examined by the Assessing Officer and in this circumstances, when there was no concealment or suppression of any facts, the reopening beyond 4 years in the absence of any non­ disclosure of material facts cannot be permitted. We are not agree with the above contention as the true facts with regard to cash transaction made by the assessee was discovered by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the specific and relevant information received from the concerned department, which prima­facie prove that the transaction shown in the books of accounts   itself   on   the   basis   of   subsequent   information   is found to be a bogus transaction and mere a disclosure of the cash entries reflected in the bank account, cannot be said to be disclosure of the full and true facts.  In this context,  we may refer and rely on  the observations  made by the Apex Court in the case of Phoolchand Bajranglal and another Vs. ITO (2001) 10 SCC 189. The observations made in para­19 reads thus: “19. Acquiring fresh information, specific in nature and reliable in character, relating to the concluded assessment which goes to expose the falsity of the statement made by the assessee at the time of original assessment is different from drawing a fresh inference from the some facts and material which was available which the I.T.O. at the time of original assessment proceedings. The two situations are distinct and different. Thus, where the transaction itself on the basis of subsequent information, is found to be a bogus transaction, the mere disclosure of that Page 10 of 19

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER transaction   at   the   time   of   original   assessment   proceedings, cannot be said to be disclosure of the "true" and "full" facts in the case and the I.T.O. would have the jurisdiction to reopen the concluded assessment in such a case. It is correct that the assessing authority could have deferred the completion of the original   assessment   proceedings   for   further   enquiry   and investigation into the genuineness to the loan transaction but in our opinion his failure to do so and complete the original assessment proceedings would not take away his jurisdiction to act under Section 147 of the Act, on receipt of the information subsequently. The subsequent information on the basis of which the I.T.O. acquired reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment on account of the omission of the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of the primary facts was relevant, reliable and specific. It was not at all vague or nonspecific. ” 15. In case of Yogendrakumar Gupta Vs. ITO (2014) 366 ITR, this Court while rejecting petition challenging the notice for reopening which was issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year, wherein, one of the ground was that the issue was previously scrutinized during the   assessment   proceedings.   We   may   reproduce   the observations made in paras 16, 17 and 21, which read thus: 16. In  Aradhna   Estate   (P)   Ltd   Vs.   DCIT,   (2018)   91 taxmann.com 119, this Court held that where reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of the information received   from   the   investigation   wing   that   assessee   had received certain amount from the Shell Companies working as an accommodation entry provider merely because these transactions were scrutinized by the Assessing officer during original assessment proceedings, the reassessment could not be held unjustified. Page 11 of 19

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER 17. In Aaspas   Multimedia   Ltd.   VS   DCIT   (2017)   78 taxmann.com, this Court while examining the validity of the notice, held that where assessment was made on the basis of information received from the Principal DIT, (Investigation), that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entry by way of share application provided by a third party,  same was justified.

(2018)   91,   taxmann.com,  this   Court   held   that   the information from the investigation wing stating that the loan from the company working as an entry operator and earning bogus   firms   to   provide   advances   to   various   persons   was sufficient and would constitute genuine and bonafide reason to believe.

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER the case of Honda Siel Power Products Vs. Dy. CIT, (2011) 10, taxmann.com,  wherein, it is held that assessee having not   pointed   out   during   assessment   proceedings   about expenses incurred relatable to tax free income u/s. 14A, there was an omission and failure on its part to disclose fully and truly material facts, hence, reopening was justified.

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER had   escaped   assessment,   the   re­opening   could   not   and should not have been declared as invalid, on the ground that he proceeded on the show­cause notice issued by the Excise Department which had yet not culminated into final order. At this stage the Assessing Officer was not required to hold conclusively that additions invariably be made. He truly had to   form   a   bona   fide   belief   that   income   had   escaped assessment. In this context, we may refer to various decisions cited by the counsel for the Revenue. 10. In case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. Income   Tax   Officer,   Nagpur   (supra)   the   Supreme   Court noted that in case of the assessee which had an office in London, this Customs authority had come to know that the assessee   had   declared   very   low   price   in   respect   of   the consignment of Manganese exported by them out of India. After   due   inquiries   and   investigations,   the   Customs authorities found that the assessee was systematically under­ voicing   the   value   of   Manganese   as   compared   with   the prevailing market price. The Income Tax Officer on coming to know about the proceedings before the Customs Collector in this respect issued notice for reopening of the assessment. In the reasons that the Assessing Officer relied on the facts as found   by   the   Customs   Authorities   that   the   assessee   had under­voiced   goods   during   export.   Under   such circumstances,   upholding   the   validity   of   the   notice   for reopening, the Supreme Court held and observed as under: "So far as the first condition is concerned, the Income Tax Officer, in his recorded reasons, has relied upon the fact as found by the Customs Authorities that the appellant had under invoiced the goods it exported. It is not doubt correct that the said finding may not be binding upon the income tax authorities but it can be a valid reason to believe that the chargeable income has been under assessed. The final outcome of the proceedings is not relevant. What is relevant is the existence of reasons to make the Income Tax Officer believe that there has been under assessment of the assessee's   income   for   a   particular   year.   We   are satisfied   that   the   first   condition   to   invoke   the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer under Section 147(a) of the Act was satisfied." 11. In case of Income Tax Officer v. Purushottam Das Bangur (supra)   after   completion   of   assessment   in   case   of   the assessee,   the   Assessing   Officer   received   letter   from Page 14 of 19

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER Directorate   of   Investigation   giving   detailed   particulars collected   from   Bombay   Stock   Exchange   which   revealed earning of share and price of share increased during period in   question   and   quotation   appearing   at   Calcutta   Stock Exchange was as a result of manipulated transaction. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer issued notice for reopening of the assessment. The question, therefore, arose  whether   the   information  contained   in  the   letter   of Directorate   of   Investigation   could   be   said   to   be   definite information and the Assessing Officer could act upon such information for taking action under Section 147(b) of the Act. In such background, the Supreme Court observed as under: "12. Ms. Gauri Rastogi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has urged that the letter of Shri. Bagai   was   received   by   the   Income   tax   Officer   on March 26, 1974 and on the very next day, that is, on March 27, 1974, he issued the impugned notice under Section 147(b) of the Act and that he did not have conducted   any   inquiry   or   investigation   into   the information sent by Shri. Bagai. Merely because the impugned   notice   was   sent   on   the   next   day   after receipt of the letter of Shri. Bagai does not mean that the Income Tax Officer did not apply his mind to the information contained in the said letter of Shri. Bagai. On   the   basis   of   the   said   facts   and   information contained in the said letter, the Income Tax officer, without any further investigation, could have formed the opinion that there was reason to believe that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The High Court, in our opinion, was in error in proceeding on the basis that it could not be said that the Income Tax Officer had in his possession information   on   the   basis   of   which   he   could   have reasons   to   believe   that   income   of   the   assessee chargeable   to   tax   had   escaped   assessment   for   the relevant   assessment   years.   For   the   reasons aforementioned,   we   are   unable   to   uphold   the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore,   allowed,   the   impugned   judgment   of   the High Court is set aside and the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed. No order as to costs." 12. In case of Income Tax Officer v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd.(supra), the assessment was reopened on the basis   of   the   information   contained   in   letter   from   Chief Mining Officer that the colliery of the assessee had been Page 15 of 19

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER inspected and there had been under reporting of coal raised. Upholding   the   validity   of   re­opening   of   assessment,   the Supreme Court held and observed as under: "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the opinion that we cannot say that the   letter   aforesaid   does   not   constitute   relevant material or that on that basis, the Income Tax Officer could not have reasonably formed the requisite belief. The letter shows that a joint inspection was conducted in the colliery of the respondent on January 9,1967, by   the   officers   of   the   Mining   Department   in   the presence of the representatives of the assessee and according to the opinion of the officers of the Mining Department, there was under reporting of the raising figure to the extent indicated in the said letter. The report is made by a Government Department and that too   after   conducting   a   joint   inspection.   It   gives   a reasonably   specific   estimate   of   the   excessive   coal mining said to have been done by the respondent over and above the figure disclosed by it in its returns. Whether the facts stated in the letter are true or not is not the concern at this stage. It may be well be that the assessee may be able to establish that the facts stated   in   the   said   letter   are   not   true   but   that conclusion can be arrived at only after making the necessary enquiry. At the stage of the issuance of the notice,   the   only   question   is   whether   there   was relevant   material,   as   stated   above,   on   which   a reasonable  person could   have   formed  the  requisite belief. Since we are unable to say that the said letter could not have constituted the basis for forming such a belief, it cannot be said that the issuance of notice was invalid. Inasmuch as, as a result of our order, the reassessment proceedings have not to go on we don not and we ought not to express any opinion on the merits." 13.   In   case   of   AGR   Investment   Ltd.   v.   Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. (supra), a Division Bench   of   Delhi   High   Court   considered   the   validity   of reopening   of   assessment   where   the   notice   was   based   on information received from Directorate of investigation that the   assessee   was   beneficiary   of   bogus   accommodation entries. The Court while upholding the validity of reopening observed that sufficiency of reason cannot be considered in a writ petition. It was observed as under: Page 16 of 19

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER "23 The present factual canvas has to be scrutinized on the touchstone of the aforesaid enunciation of law. It is worth noting that the learned counsel for the petitioner   has   submitted   with   immense   vehemence that the petitioner had entered into correspondence to have the documents but the assessing officer treated them   as   objections   and   made   a   communication. However, on a scrutiny of the order, it is perceivable that the authority has passed the order dealing with the objections in a very careful and studied manner. He   has   taken   note   of   the   fact   that   transactions involving   Rs.   27   lakhs   mentioned   in   the   table   in Annexure P­2 constitute fresh information in respect of   the   assessee   as   a   beneficiary   of   bogus accommodation entries provided to it and represents the   undisclosed   income.   The   assessing   officer   has referred to the subsequent information and adverted to the concept of true and full disclosure of facts. It is also   noticeable   that   there   was   specific   information received from the office of the DIT (INV­V) as regards the transactions entered into by the assessee company with   number   of   concerns   which   had   made accommodation entries and they were not genuine transactions. As we perceive, it is neither a change of opinion nor does it convey a particular interpretation of a specific provision which was done in a particular manner in the original assessment and sought to be done in a different manner in the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. The reason to believe has been appropriately understood by the assessing officer and there is material on the basis of which the notice was issued. As has been held in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (supra), Bombay Pharma Products (supra) and Anant Kumar   Saharia   (supra),   the   Court,   in   exercise   of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India   pertaining   to   sufficiency   of   reasons   for formation of the belief, cannot interfere. The same is not to be judged at that stage. In SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (supra), the bench has interfered as it was not discernible  whether the assessing officer had applied his   mind   to   the   information   and   independently arrived at a belief on the basis of material which he had   before   him   that   the   income   had   escaped assessment. In our considered opinion, the decision rendered   therein   is   not   applicable   to   the   factual matrix in the case at hand. In the case of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench had   noted   that   certain   companies   were   used   as Page 17 of 19

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER conduits but the assessee had, at the stage of original assessment,   furnished   the   names   of   the   companies with which it had entered into transactions and the assessing officer was made aware of the situation and further   the   reason   recorded   does   not   indicate application of mind. That apart, the existence of the companies was not disputed and the companies had bank   accounts   and   payments   were   made   to   the assessee   company   through   the   banking   channel. Regard being had to the aforesaid fact situation, this Court had interfered. Thus, the said decision is also distinguishable on the factual score." 14. Learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2008] 302 ITR 275 (Mad) upheld the notice for reopening which was based on information from enforcement directorate showing possible inflation of purchases made by the assessee.” 21. The   learned   counsel   raised   the   contention   that   while according the sanction under Section 151 of the Act, the authority concerned has not applied his mind properly and mechanically accorded the sanction.   We have perused the papers   of   the  approval,   which   shows   that   the   competent authority has given the satisfaction in hand writing and has expressed his satisfaction with regard to reasons recorded and   accorded   the   sanction   to   issue   impugned   notice. Therefore, the approval for reassessment was granted on the date   on   which   the   impugned   notice   was   issued.   In   this circumstances, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the writ applicant that sanction was not obtained before issuance of the notice cannot be accepted. 22. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, it cannot be said that there was no tangible material before the Assessing Page 18 of 19

C/SCA/21125/2019 ORDER Officer and that he proceeded mechanically based on the sole information and the impugned notice is without jurisdiction and contrary to Section 147 of the Act. 23. For   the   foregoing   reasons,   no   case   is   made   out   and accordingly, present writ application deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (ILESH J. VORA,J) P.S. JOSHI Page 19 of 19