Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 68, Section 10(38), Section 115BBE.

Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT

Q: How many judgments cite Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT?

68 judgments on BharatTax cite Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT (356 ITR 481), spanning 2016 to 2025.

356 ITR 481High Court2013#1670 most cited

What is Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for mere verification of claims or a fishing and roving inquiry, even after a Section 143(1) intimation. The Assessing Officer must possess tangible material and form an independent, genuine reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, rather than relying on borrowed satisfaction.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. Gopalan · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · reason to believe · tangible material · escapement of income · mere verification · fishing and roving inquiry · borrowed satisfaction · reassessment validity · Section 143(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 68 Section 10(38)Section 115BBE Section 132 Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

material facts necessary for assessment section 80hhc borrowed satisfaction tangible material reason to believe reopening of assessment escapement of income scrutiny assessment genuineness of the transaction section 131 notice under section 148 reassessment proceedings

Judgments citing Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT

M/S Vinayak Financial Consultants Private Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2695/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsyan & Shri RobinFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…sence of any tangible material in possession of the AO, subsequent to the Intimation u/s 143 (1), the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 was not sustainable. Page 17 20 ITA No.2695/KOL/2024 Page 12.27 Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. Vs M. Gopalan, Dy.CIT [2013] 356 ITR 481 (copy enclosed). (Guj). In this case, for the AY 2002-03, assessee's retum was processed by sending intimation under section 143(1). Thereafter, a notice under section 148 of the Act for the AY 2002- 03, was issued to the assessee. It was, Inter-alla, held that the power to reopen an assessment is available either in a case where a retum has been…

Manishkumar Ramlakhan Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 6(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 1738/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…eason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, would apply. Reference in this respect can be made to the decision of this Court in case of Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. Gopalan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2013] 356 ITR 481 (Guj). Validity of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer would therefore be one of the issues. 11. In this context, we have noted that the reasons proceeded on two fundamental grounds. One, that the property in question was sold for a sum of Rs.1,18,95,000/ and two, that the assessee had not filed the return and that therefore his 1/3rd s…

Kumar Ramesh Sahu, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Rajkot, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 336/RJT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 54Section 68

…verified. The secure of aggregate loan of Rs. 65,73,083/- remained unexplained." Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) (P.) Ltd. v. M. Gopalan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) 256 CTR (Guj.) 61: (2017) 77 DTR (Guj.) 1: (2023) 356 ITR 481 (Guj.) under Para 17 held as under: "we are in agreement with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that for mere verification of the claim, power for reopening of assessment could not be exercised. The Ld. AO in guise of power to reopen an assessment, cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims a…

Tulshi Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, WD-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 776/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…pecial leave petition filed by the Revenue in the above case as reported in (2019) 101 taxmann.com 259 (SC) wherein thereby upholding the view taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the above case. (b) In the case of Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that the reassessment notice is not permissible merely for verification of claim made under section 80HHC of the Act. The relevant extract of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court is reproduced below: “18. Reverting to the facts of the present case, we notice that in two out of the four reaso…

M/S. Saroj Embrods Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1352/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…llowing decisions: 1. PCIT v ManzilDineshkumar Shah (406 ITR 326)(Guj) 2. SLP dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dinesh kumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 5 I.T.A. Nos.1351 & 1352/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Saroj Embrods Pvt. Ltd. 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Delhi) 7. The Ld. A.R., therefore…

Saroj Embrods Private Limited., Hooghly vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1351/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Girishkumar M. Puruswani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 407/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he reasons recorded do not reflect the requisite belief that income has escaped the assessment and the basic requirement of Section 147 is not fulfilled and therefore, the proceedings u/s. 147 were quashed. In another judgment of Inductotherm India Pvt. Ltd. (356 ITR 481), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court once again held that the power of reassessment cannot be exercised for the purpose of verification. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble High Court in this judgment is reproduced hereunder: (Quote) "18. Reverting to the facts of the present case, we notice that in two out of four reasons recorded by the Assessi…

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Girishkumar M. Puruswani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 406/RJT/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Girishkumar M. Puruswani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 405/RJT/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Srilab Neo Packs Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Ranchi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 29/RAN/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 Jan 2023

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…lt with the same relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC), judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2013] 356 ITR 481 (Guj.) and has observed that ld. AO rightly recorded the reasons before re- opening. Since there is no representation on behalf of the assessee to rebut this finding of ld. CIT(A) and the facts before us supports the finding of ld. CIT(A), we fail to find any infirmity thereof and thus, hold that the re-opening of assessment as well as issuance o…

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S G.K.Ispat Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2408/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…I.T.A. No.2407 & 2408/Kol/2019 C.O No. 55 & 56/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. M/s G.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dinesh kumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 6. CIT v ManibenLalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Delhi) 10. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that quantum of alleged escapement of income was not stated in the reasons recorded an…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2407/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Shri Nikhil Harkishor Sanghvi, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 282/RJT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…ITA No.282/RJT/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Nikhil Harkishor Sanghvi, vs. The Income Tax Officer, C/o. Sarda & Sarda, Ward – 2(1)(4), Rajkot. Chartered Accountants, 1st Floor, “Sakar” Opp. Rajkumar College, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Rajkot – 360 001. [PAN – AGBPS 6813 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date…

Inderjeet Kohli, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-38(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6963/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi

Section 147Section 148Section 22

…s to verify it. In view of the settled position of law that for a mere verification of the claim, the power of reopening of assessment cannot be exercised. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. Vs. M. Gopalan, reported in 2013 356 ITR 481 has held that for a mere verification of the claim, the power of re-opening of the assessment could not be exercised and it further held that AO under the guise of power to re-open the assessment cannot seek to undertake an undertaking a fishing or roving inquiry or seek to verify the claim as if he is the scrutiny officer. 22. Further, the read…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Key Tech, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7456/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…decisions as under: 1. PCIT v Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (406 ITR 326)(Guj) 2. SLP dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dineshkumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481)(Guj) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435)(SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308)(Bom) 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453)(Bom) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526)(Bom) 8. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts in the jud…

Income Tax Officer 12(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Manhattan Impex Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 639/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale: A.Y : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sajit V. Nair, D.R

Section 141Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68

…decisions as under: 1. PCIT v Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (406 ITR 326)(Guj) 2. SLP dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dineshkumar Shah 3. Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481) (Gujarat) 4. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435) (SC) 5. Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308) (Bombay HC) 6. CIT v Maniben Lalji Shah (283 ITR 453) (Bombay HC) 7. CIT v Batra Bhatia Company (321 ITR 526) (Delhi HC) 8. Swatik Safe Deposit & Investment Ltd. vs. ACIT (265 Taxman 164) (Bombay HC) 7 M/s. Manhattan I…

Smt. Praveen Sewak Nayyar, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5 (1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 977/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54

…d not allow the re-opening of the assessment merely for verification of cash transactions. Reliance has been placed by the Tribunal on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M. Gopalan, DCIT reported in 356 ITR 481. This judgment is reliable for the proposition that for mere verification of the claim, power of re-opening of the assessment could not be exercised. 6. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. for the Revenue informed that the transactions of payments of money to Shri Vishal Kedar involves the role of Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited which is the…

Shri Raj Kumar Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Ms Suhani Maharwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, would apply. Reference in this respect can be made to the decision of this Court in case of Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. vs. M. Gopalan, Deputy Commission of Income-Tax reported in (2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj.). Validity of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer would therefore be one of the issues. 11. In this context, we have noted that the reasons proceeded on two fundamental grounds. One, that the property in question was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,18,95,000/- and two; that the assessee had not filed the return and that therefore his 1/3r…

Im.Media Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As M/S.Saraswathi Media Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2907/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Limson, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 68

…ITR 326)(Guj) 2. SLP dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of PCIT v Manzil Dineshkumar Shah 3. Judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Inductotheran (India) P. Ltd. v DCIT (356 ITR 481) M/s. IM Media Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as M/s. Saraswathi Media Pvt. Ltd.) 4. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha and Ors. Ltd. (416 ITR 435) 5. Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (375 ITR 308) 6. Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the…

Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (HUF), Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Sangli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 327/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.325/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, C.S. No.34, Laxmi Bunglow, Revenue Colony, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Afdpg9973Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.327/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (Huf), C.S. No.34, Laxmi Bunglow, Revenue Colony, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aahhs9603Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. Both The Appeals Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Kolhapur Dated

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 6Section 68

…take a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims as if it were a scrutiny assessment. Here the reference could be made to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inductotherm (India) P Ltd Vs. M Gopalan, DCIT reported in (2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble High Court that for a mere verification of the claim, the power of reopening of assessment could not be exercised. It further observed that the Assessing Officer under the guise of power to reopen an assessment, cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving inquiry and seek to verify the claims, as if…