[2025:RJ-JP:22490-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7297/2007 Tarun Modi Proprietor of M/s Tarun Overseas, aged about 28 years, registered office at 35-A, Talwandi, Kota-326517. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Central Revenue Building, Near CAD Circle, Kota. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Near CAD Circle, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakul Khurana with Mr. Rajat Sharma for Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shantanu Sharma with Mr. Aditya Doda & Mr. Parth Vashishtha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 28/05/2025 1. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.08.2007 dismissing the objections filed for re-opening the assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner proprietorship concerned was engaged in export of vegetables and fruits. The petitioner for assessment year 2001-02 filed return claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The assessment was finalised u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 16.03.2004. A notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act. On supply of the reasons, the petitioner filed objections which were rejected. Hence, the present petition. [2025:RJ-JP:22490-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-7297/2007] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that re-opening was on the basis of the findings recorded for assessment year 2003-04 that the exports claimed to have been made by the petitioner through M/s Gemeni Enterprises were bogus and the petitioner was not entitled to deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. The contention is that proceedings for assessment year 2003-04 were set aside in appeal by the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the tribunal’) vide order dated 13.09.2007. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on instructions is not in a position to dispute the factual contention made by the counsel for the petitioner. Submission is that in the reply, it was inadvertently pleaded that re-assessment order for assessment year 2001-02 has been passed whereas the order pertains to year 2002-2003. 5. From perusal of the reasons for reopening, it is forthcoming that only basis for reopening the assessment order was findings recorded in assessment year 2003-2004, which no longer survives. Nothing has been brought before us to show that the order of the tribunal is under challenge. The foundation for reopening having been eroded and no basis survives for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order and the notice are quashed. 6. The writ petition is allowed. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat/03