JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Soparkar with learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondent. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel waives service of notice of rule. 3. All these three petitions are preferred to challenge the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 in case of the petitioner assessee. 4. As the facts are common, the same can be summarized as under: 4.1 The petitioner is in the business of trading in gold and silver bullion. The petitioner filed return of income for the respective assessment years. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the order under section 143(3) was passed. For the remaining two assessment years, no scrutiny assessment was undertaken. 4.2 The respondent-Assessing Officer upon information received from credible sources that the petitioner has deposited cash of Rs. 16.80 Crore during the year 2013-14 in the bank account and on perusal of the details available it was found that the petitioner made cash sales without keeping proper documentary evidence and identity of the customers on the pretext that under no law it is mandatory to keep the details and during the year, cash deposit appearing in the bank account of the petitioner was found as under in all the three years, hence, the Assessing Officer formed reason to believe that income has escaped assessment: Assessment Year Money Appearing the bank account of the Petitioner (Rupees) 2014-15 504.50 Cr 2015-16 1535.81 Cr 2016-17 1436.72 Cr 4.3 For the Assessment Year 2015-16, there was one more reason for reopening as during survey conducted under section 133A of the Act by the Investigation Wing on 03.12.2016 at Indore Branch of Dhyanradha Multi State Cooperative Credit Society Ltd by DDIT (Inv.) Ujjain, it was found that the petitioner received Rs. 4,52,99,000/- which was deposited by various persons in the said cooperative society which was transferred to Axis Bank account and from that account the funds were transferred by related parties to the petitioner. 4,52,99,000/- which was deposited by various persons in the said cooperative society which was transferred to Axis Bank account and from that account the funds were transferred by related parties to the petitioner. 4.4 The petitioner filed objections to the notices for reopening contending inter alia that the petiitoner has accounted the cash sales in the books of account and the amount deposited in the bank account represents the cash sales and therefore, no addition can be made as it would amount to double taxation. With regard to amount received from Dhyanradha Multi State Cooperative Credit Society Ltd for A.Y. 2015-16, it was explained by the petitioner that the said amount was in relation to the sales made by the petitioner to one Patidar Enterprise during the year 2014-15 relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-16 towards the sale of the bullion and jewelry and the amount was duly reflected as sales in the books of account and offered to tax. 4.5 The Assessing Officer, however, in total disregard to the explanation given by the petitioner, disposed of the objections. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Soparkar appearing with the learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner submitted that the reasons recorded are cryptic and vague as there is no nexus between the information received and the satisfaction recorded. It was submitted that there is complete non-application of mind in recording reasons. 5.1 It was further submitted that so far as Assessment Year 2014-15 is concerned, there was scrutiny during the course of regular assessment in which the information with regard to cash sales was called for which was submitted by the petitioner and therefore, the amount sought to be considered as escaping assessment would be a mere change of opinion. 5.2 It was further submitted that the petitioner has replied every summon and notice issued by the respondent giving the details asked for and there is nothing incriminating found during the course of such investigation. It was therefore submitted that there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts so far as Assessment Year 2014-15 is concerned and no income has escaped assessment. It was therefore submitted that there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts so far as Assessment Year 2014-15 is concerned and no income has escaped assessment. 5.3 Referring to the order disposing off the objections it was pointed out that the respondent-Assessing Officer has not dealt with any of the objection raised by the petitioner but has only referred to the provisions of the Act and various decisions to come to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer shall look into the objections at the time of assessment proceedings and he has formed reason to believe that there is escapement of income on the basis of information available with him. 5.4 So far as other two assessment years are concerned, it was submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Soparkar that reasons are identical inasmuch as the amount of Rs. 16.80 Crore is found in the reasons recorded for each of the Assessment Year. It was further submitted that the amount deposited in cash by the petitioner in the bank represents the cash sales which is already reflected in the books of accounts and the reasons are factually incorrect having no live link with the facts on record and there is total non-application of mind as no income has escaped assessment. So far as Assessment Year 2015-16 is concerned, it was submitted that reference to the survey conducted under section 133A at Indore has no relation with the petitioner as the petitioner does not have any account in the said credit society and the petitioner has never deposited any cash and the transaction of sale with Patidar Enterprise is duly reflected in the books of accounts. 5.5 It was therefore submitted that the reasons recorded by the respondent- Assessing Officer are absolutely vague cryptic, without application of mind and therefore, the respondent-Assessing Officer could not have assumed the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for all the three assessment years. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel for the respondent-Assessing Officer submitted that the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act have been issued after recording cogent reasons having reason to believe that income has escaped assessment as the petitioner failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel for the respondent-Assessing Officer submitted that the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act have been issued after recording cogent reasons having reason to believe that income has escaped assessment as the petitioner failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts. It was submitted that on perusal of the reasons recorded there was information made available to the Assessing Officer to the effect that Investigation Wing at Ahmedabad has provided information that the petitioner is found to be the owner of the money appearing in the Bank account and therefore such, financial transaction of the petitioner depositing the cash amount in the bank results into the income escaping assessment which is liable to be taxed under the provisions of section 69 of the Act. 6.1 Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel referred to and relied upon the following averments in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent in Special Civil Application No. 2924/2024 for Assessment Year 2014-15: “9. In this case, it is to be stated that on the issue of petitioner's allegation that no income has escaped assessment and the issue in question has already been verified during assessment proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act and reopening on the same issue is change of opinion, comments have already been offered wherein it was stated that the case of the assessee was selected in scrutiny and assessment was completed on 06.09.2016. The assessment order was passed by the then AO as per the information available with the AO at that time. The AO was not having information from the Investigation Wing at the time of framing assessment order. Hence, the particular issue on which the case is reopened was not examined by the then AO. It is further seen from the case record of the assessee related to scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15 that vide question no. 10 in notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 01.08.2016, the assessee was asked to submit certain details. The relevant portion of the questionnaire is reproduced as under: “Also furnish month wise details of sales and purchases, both in quantity and value alongwith details along with details of Month wise consumption of raw materials, production of finished goods, yield ratio and reason for intra month variation in yield ratio, if any. The relevant portion of the questionnaire is reproduced as under: “Also furnish month wise details of sales and purchases, both in quantity and value alongwith details along with details of Month wise consumption of raw materials, production of finished goods, yield ratio and reason for intra month variation in yield ratio, if any. Also furnish party wise purchases and sales with name, address and amount.” In response to the above notice, the assessee vide its submission dated 10.08.2016 has stated that “The month wise details of sales and purchase in quantity and value is as per Exhibit-D.” But, it is noticed from the ‘Exhibit-D’ furnished by the assessee that only month wise purchase and sales summary has been furnished by the assessee. No party wise purchase and sales with name, address and amount has been furnished by the assessee. In fact, the assessee itself is totally silent about furnishing party wise purchases and sales with name, address and amount in its submission.” 6.2 Referring to the aforesaid averments, it was submitted that the petitioner failed to provide required information even during the regular course of assessment as no party wise purchases and sales with name, address, amount has been furnished by the assessee. It was therefore submitted that no interference may be made by this Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Considering the rival submissions made by learned advocates for both the sides, it would be germane to reproduce reasons recorded for all the three assessment years which would be an interesting reading of the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer: (I) For A.Y. 2015-16 in SCA 3285/2022 the reasons are as under: “Issues as per reasons recorded for reopening BASIS OF FORMING REASON TO BELIEVE AND DETAILS OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME: As per the information received from the credible sources that the survey action u/s.133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 03.12.2016 at Indore Branch of Dhyanradha Multi State Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. by the DDIT (Inv.) Ujjain to collect the data regarding the depositors and beneficiaries of such huge deposits. On further verification of information received through Insight Portal, it is seen that, during the year under consideration, the account holder (parties) had deposited cash with the Dhyanradha Multi State Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. and thereafter the society was depositing cash in the AXIS Bank account bearing number 911010037459714, subsequently, the funds were transferred (returned back) to related parties through RTGS etc. These parties are finally Overall beneficiaries of such cash deposits. The financial transaction Involved in this case is Rs. 4,52,99,000/-. It is further worth to mention here that, on going through the formation available in Insight Portal, the assessee-company found to be the owner of the transacted money. The financial transaction involved In this case is of Rs. 4,52,99,000. Further, for invoking deeming provisions under Section 69A of the act, there should be clearly unexplained money. On perusal of information so received from Investigation Wing, Indore, it is noticed that the assessee-company J K Bullions Pvt. Ltd. (AACCJ1665K) is found to be the owner and beneficiary of the money to the tune of Rs. 4,52,99,000/- as reflected in the information received from Investigation Wing, Indore. The financial transaction as discussed above is clearly attract the provision of section 69A of the Income Tax Act and therefore required to be added back to the total Income of the assessee. As per the Information received from the credible sources that the assesses has deposited cash of Rs. 16.80 crores during the year. On perusal of details available, Its found that the assessee has made cash sales to customers v without obtaining complete identity of the customer/purchaser. It Is found that the gold invoices (retail and non-retails) for 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, there is no signature of authorized person on sales invoices. Further, there is no signature of the person who sold the said items. No Signature of persons who have taken delivery in lieu of the cash paid by them for alleged purchase of gold/silver items. All the invoices appear to be prepared by computer just before producing the same before the department for examination. Therefore, books of the account of the subject cant be considered reliable for F.Y. 2014-15. The AR and the accountant of the company contended that there is no legal obligation to maintain name, address, PAN or signature of any customer to whom sales below Rs. 2 lakhs was made. Therefore, books of the account of the subject cant be considered reliable for F.Y. 2014-15. The AR and the accountant of the company contended that there is no legal obligation to maintain name, address, PAN or signature of any customer to whom sales below Rs. 2 lakhs was made. In nutshell, it appears that the subject has tried to derive benefit for not keeping the proper documentary evidences and identify of Customers on the pretext that under no law it is mandatory to keep such details. On perusal of information so received from Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, it Is noticed that the assessee J K Bullions Pvt. Ltd. (AACCJ1665K) is found to be the owner of the money appearing in the bank accounts to the tune of Rs. 15,35,61,01,414/- and the transaction as discussed above is clearly attract the provision of section 69A of the Income Tax Act and therefore required to be added back to the total income of the assessee.” (II) For A.Y 2014-15 in SCA 2924/20 the reasons are as under: Issues as per reasons recorded for reopening BASIS OF FORMING REASON TO BELIEVE AND DETAILS OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME: As per the information received from the credible sources that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 16.80 crores during the year. On perusal of details available, it is found that the assessee has made cash sales to customers without obtaining complete identity of the customer/purchaser. It is found that the gold invoices (retail and non-retails) for 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014, there is no signature of authorized person on sales invoices. Further, there is no signature of the person who sold the said items. No signature of persons who have taken delivery in lieu of the cash paid by them for alleged purchase of gold/silver items. Al the invoices appear to be prepared by computer just before producing the same before the department for examination. Therefore, books of the account of the subject cant be considered reliable for F.Y. 2013-14.The AR and the accountant of the company contended that there is no legal obligation to maintain name, address, PAN or signature of any customer to whom sales below Rs. 2 lakhs was made. Therefore, books of the account of the subject cant be considered reliable for F.Y. 2013-14.The AR and the accountant of the company contended that there is no legal obligation to maintain name, address, PAN or signature of any customer to whom sales below Rs. 2 lakhs was made. In nutshell, it appears that the subject has tried to derive benefit for not keeping the proper documentary evidences and identify of customers on the pretext that under no law it is mandatory to keep such details. On perusal of information so received from Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, it is noticed that the assessee J.K. Bullions Pvt. Ltd. (AACCJ1665K) is found to be the owner of the money appearing in the bank accounts to the tune of Rs. 5,04,50,27,153/- and the financial transaction as discussed above is clearly attract the provision of section 69A of the Income Tax Act and therefore required to be added back to the total income of the assessee. Failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment, the income of the assessee has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs. 5,04,50,27,153/- for the AY 2014-15 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I have, therefore, reason to believe that this is a fit case for the opening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (III) For A.Y. 2016-17 in SCA 2917 the reasons are as under: “Issues as per reasons recorded for reopening BASIS OF FORMING REASON TO BELIEVE AND DETAILS OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME: As per the information received from the credible sources that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 16.80 crores during the year. On perusal of details available, it is found that the assessee has made cash sales to customers without obtaining complete identity of the customer/purchaser. It is found that the gold invoices (retail and non-retails) for 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, there is no signature of authorized person on sales invoices. Further, there is no signature of the person who sold the said items. No signature of persons who have taken delivery in lieu of the cash paid by them for alleged purchase of gold/silver items. All the invoices appear to be prepared by computer just before producing the same before the department for examination. Further, there is no signature of the person who sold the said items. No signature of persons who have taken delivery in lieu of the cash paid by them for alleged purchase of gold/silver items. All the invoices appear to be prepared by computer just before producing the same before the department for examination. Therefore, books of the account of the subject can't be Considered reliable for F.Y. 2014-15. The AR and the accountant of the company contended that there is no legal obligation to maintain name, address, PAN or signature of any Customer to whom sales below Rs. 2 lakhs was made. In nutshell, it appears that the subject has tried to derive benefit for not keeping the proper documentary evidences and identify of Customers on the pretext that under no law it is mandatory to keep such details. On perusal of information so received from Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, It is noticed that the assessee J.K. Bullions Pvt. Ltd. (AACCJ1665K)is found to be the owner of the money appearing in the bank accounts to the tune of Rs. 14,36,72,31,356/- and the financial transaction as discussed above Is clearly attract the provision of section 69A of the Income Tax Act and therefore required to be added back to the total Income of the assessee.Failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment, the income of the assessee has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs. 14,36,72,31,356/- for the AY 2016-17 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I have, therefore, reason to believe that this is a fit case for reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. On perusal of the above reasons recorded for the three assessment years, it is apparent that so far as information of Rs. 16.80 Crore is concerned, from credible sources the same is repeated for all the three years. Similarly, the information made available by the Investigation Wing Ahmedabad is also common. Only the information of the Investigation Wing Indore so far as Assessment Year 2015-16 is different which is explained by the petitioner. However, the same is not considered by the Assessing Officer in the order disposing of the objections. 9. Similarly, the information made available by the Investigation Wing Ahmedabad is also common. Only the information of the Investigation Wing Indore so far as Assessment Year 2015-16 is different which is explained by the petitioner. However, the same is not considered by the Assessing Officer in the order disposing of the objections. 9. On perusal of the reasons recorded, it is apparent that the same are absolutely cryptic and vague. It does not disclose any nexus between the information received and the satisfaction recorded to form reason to believe that income has escaped assessment resulting into non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer while recording reasons to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is a trite law that when the reasons recorded are cryptic, vague having no nexus and no application of mind, the Assessing Officer cannot assume the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Even the order disposing of the objection is a non-speaking order. We are unable to understand as to how the deposits made in the bank account would result in escapement of income, more particularly, when the assessee has categorically stated in the objections that the same represent the cash sales which is deposited in the bank account and duly recorded in the books of account. The Assessing Officer has failed to show even prima facie reason to believe as to how the information received from the Investigation Wing would amount to escapement of income as there is total lack of formation of reason to believe on part of the Assessing Officer to prima facie arriving at a finding that it is a fit case to reopen the assessment for escaping income of more than Rs. 500 Crore for Assessment Year 2014-15, Rs. 1535 Crore for Assessment Year 2015-16, and Rs. 1436 Crore for A.Y. 2016-17. 10. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petitions succeed. Impugned notices dated 31.03.2021 for all three Assessment Years i.e. A.Y. 2014-15, A.Y. 2015-16 and A.Y. 2016-14 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.