Bombay HC dismissed writ petition against reopening – Observed wrong mention of return not filed as a typographical error




Loading

Bombay HC dismissed writ petition against reopening – Observed wrong mention of return not filed as a typographical error

 

Bombay High Court: Sanjay Ratra WP 38 of 2025 has dealt with various issues wherein the legaility of reassessment proceeding was hallenged.

Let us have a Short Overview of the case:

Notice under section 148A(b):
On 24 March 2023, a notice under Section 148A(b) was issued, alleging that Sanjay Ratra had received undisclosed cash of INR 1.30 crore and had credit card transactions amounting to INR 19,09,144 that were not accounted for.

The petitioner objected to the notice, providing explanations and supporting documents, including bank statements.

On 17 April 2023, the respondents rejected the petitioner’s objections and issued a notice under Section 148, which is being challenged in this petition.

Petitioner’s arguments:
The petitioner argued that the reopening of the case was based on an erroneous assumption that he had not filed his return of income.
The petitioner contended that the issues were already examined during the original assessment proceedings.
The petitioner also argued that the notice should have been issued under Section 153C and not Section 148.

Respondents’ arguments:
The respondents argued that the information regarding the alleged cash transaction was received after the original assessment order was passed.

The respondents contended that the credit card expenses and alleged cash transactions were not examined during the original assessment proceedings.

The respondents maintained that the reopening was based on information received in accordance with the Risk Management Strategy (RMS).

High Court’s decision


Examination of issues during original assessment:

The court noted that the alleged cash receipt and credit card expenses were not examined during the original assessment proceedings.
The court acknowledged that the statement in the notice that the petitioner had not filed a return of income was a typographical error.
The court emphasized that the reopening was based on information received in accordance with the Risk Management Strategy, not on the erroneous statement.
Applicability of section 148A:
The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the notice should have been issued under Section 153C, as the information related to both the alleged cash receipt and credit card expenses, hence, reopening justified.
Approval under Section 151:
The court examined the approval memo and found that the approval was given after considering the material available on record and thereby not without application of mind.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the notice issued under Section 148.

In this case, the petitioner had missed raising a ground on Hexaware decision, which was only argued during the proceedings, since there was no specific ground, the Court did not entertain.

The court allowed the petitioner to raise the issues in normal reassessment or appellate proceedings if and when the occasion arises.

 

The Copy of the order is as under:

1736249419405




Menu