Yogini Bipin Soneta v. ITO

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 147

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• S. 147 : Reassessment-Capital gains-Penny stock alternative remedy-Reassessment notice was held to be valid. [S. 45, 142(1), 148, Art. 226] Reassessment notice was issued for verifying the exemption claimed in respect of penny stock on the basis of information received. The objection of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer. On writ dismissing the petition the Court held that the assessee has not offered the short term capital gains hence the reassessment notice was held to be valid. (WP No. 2817 of 2019 dt. 03-1-2022, AY. 2012-13) [CORAM : JUSTICE SHRI K.R. SHRIRAM & : JUSTICE SHRI R. N.
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

1/4 904-2817-19.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2817 OF 2019 Yogini Bipin Soneta ….Petitioner V/s. Income Tax Officer Ward 29(3)(2) Mumbai & Ors. …Respondents ---- Mr. Devendra H. Jain a/w Ms Radha Halbe for Petitioner Mr. Sham V . Walve for Respondents Revenue ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & R. N. LADDHA, JJ DATED : 3rd JANUARY 2022 P .C. : 1 Petitioner is challenging a notice dated 25 th March 2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) and the subsequent order dated 27 th August 2019 disposing petitioner's objections to the impugned notice. 2 Petitioner had filed return of income on 24 th July 2012 for A.Y.-20122013 disclosing gross total income of Rs.3,73,216/- and total taxable income of Rs.3,56,250/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, petitioner received the notice dated 25 th March 2019 under Section 148 of the Act which is impugned in this petition. In response to petitioner's request, petitioner received reasons for re-opening by a communication dated 20 th June 2019. In the reasons, it is alleged that the Assessing Officer has received information that one Aricent Infra Ltd. was a penny stock scrip and petitioner has traded in this scrip during F .Y.- Meera Jadhav

2/4 904-2817-19.doc 2011-2012 and the total transaction amount was Rs.36,54,920/-. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed the return declaring total income of Rs.3,56,250/- and the assessee has shown the income from salary at Rs.2,25,000/-, income from house property at Rs.1,22,640/-, income from short term capital gains of Rs.22,459/- and income from other sources at Rs.3,027/-. According to the Assessing Officer, assessee ought to have offered the income on the above said transactions for taxation and further as there is no information available on Income Tax Department (ITD system) regarding the penny stock, the same needs verification. Petitioner filed objection to the reasons which was rejected by an order dated 27 th August 2019, which is also impugned in this petition.

3 Mr. Jain attacked the reasons on two points namely; a) the reasons should have stated the assessee ought to have offered income on the above said transactions for taxation and not ought to have not offered the income and, therefore, there is non application of mind by the Assessing Officer as well as the sanctioning authority and b) no assessment can be reopened for verification and he relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 Vs. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah1. Mr. Jain submitted that the Supreme Court had refused to interfere in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the order of Gujarat High Court.

Mr. Jain submitted relying on Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (supra) that reopening of the assessment would not be 1 (2018) 95 taxmann.com 46 (Gujarat) Meera Jadhav

3/4 904-2817-19.doc permitted for fishing or roving inquiry and the moment reasons recorded says, "the same needs verification", it means that the re-opening was a fishing or roving inquiry , which is not permissible. 4 Per contra, Mr. Walve opposes the petition and submitted that court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Walve submitted that after the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued, petitioner filed its return of income in compliance with the notice on 2nd May 2019 showing upward revision. Mr. Walve submitted that petitioner had earlier filed returns on 24 th July 2012 declaring a gross total income of Rs.3,73,216/- and only after petitioner received the notice dated 25th March 2019 under Section 148 of the Act, that this upward revision was disclosed to the Income Tax authorities.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

4/4 904-2817-19.doc 5 We have considered the submissions made by the counsel and also the pleadings filed. Admittedly , petitioner had not offered to tax the short term capital gains on scrip named Vikas Wsp Ltd. Admittedly , it was offered only after petitioner received the notice under Section 148 of the Act. Even if, we hold that the reasons are not very happily worded, still the fact that petitioner after almost 6 years and after receiving the notice under Section 148 filed return showing upward revision, itself would mean that the Assessing Officer would be entitled to reopen the assessment. Though, we would agree with Mr. Jain that reopening of the assessment is not permitted for fishing or roving inquiry or for verification purpose, still the fact that petitioner has filed returns in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act and disclosing therein that short term capital gains earned in F . Y.- 2011-2012 was not offered to tax, would itself entitle the Assessing Officer to issue notice under Section 142(1) of the Act calling for further details. If we interfere, the Revenue may suffer. 6 In the circumstances, we do not wish to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner may adopt the alternate remedy that is available under the provisions of the Act. Keeping open all rights and contentions of petitioner to be raised before the Assessing Officer, petition dismissed. (R. N. LADDHA, J) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Meera Jadhav

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Yogini Bipin Soneta v. ITO concerns s. 147 : reassessment-capital gains-penny stock alternative remedy-reassessment notice was held to be valid. [s. 45, 142(1), 148, art. 226] reassessment notice was issued for verifying the exemption claimed in respect of penny stock on the basis of information received. the objection of the assessee was rejected by the assessing officer. on writ dismissing the petition the court held that the assessee has not offered the short term capital gains hence the reassessment notice was held to be valid. (wp no. 2817 of 2019 dt. 03-1-2022, ay. 2012-13) [coram : justice shri k.r. shriram & : justice shri r. n. The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT PETITION NO.2817 OF 2019.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Dismissed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: S. 147 : Reassessment-Capital gains-Penny stock alternative remedy-Reassessment notice was held to be valid. [S. 45, 142(1), 148, Art. 226] Reassessment notice was issued for verifying the exemption claimed in respect of penny stock on the basis of information received. The objection of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer. On writ dismissing the petition the Court held that the assessee has not offered the short term capital gains hence the reassessment notice was held to be valid. (WP No. 2817 of 2019 dt. 03-1-2022, AY. 2012-13) [CORAM : JUSTICE SHRI K.R. SHRIRAM & : JUSTICE SHRI R. N. Its practical value lies in the way the Bombay High Court connected the governing provisions—147—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of 147 and the decision date 2022-01-03; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Yogini Bipin Soneta v. ITO, the proceeding is WRIT PETITION NO.2817 OF 2019, and the decision is dated 2022-01-03. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as K.R. SHRIRAM & R. N. LADDHA, JJ. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with 147. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Dismissed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• 147 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Pr. CIT (Central)-1 v. Surendra L. Hiranandani — Bombay High Court · Dismissed
• Pr. CIT v. Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd. — Bombay High Court · Dismissed
• Anil Ramchandran Pillai v. NFAC — Bombay High Court · Dismissed
• Sanjay Patel v. ACIT — Bombay High Court · Dismissed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 592 judgments
• Explore Reassessment & Reopening

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY