2004 (4) TMI 44 - HC - Income Tax

Reassessment notice - it is evident that the question about the entries in the name of the petitioner-Hindu undivided family standing in the books of the firm M/s. Atul Traders or M/s. Atul Industrial Corporation have been fully investigated by the Assessing Officer and only after such investigation he has come to the opinion that these were bogus entries. - Thus it is obvious that the impugned notice under section 148 has been issued only on the basis of a change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer which is illegal. - the impugned notices are quashed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, and notice under section 143(2) dated February 22, 1990.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Hindu undivided family, owns a residential house and receives rental income. Allegations were made regarding a partnership concern, M/s. Atul Traders, fraudulently starting an account in the petitioner's name without consent, showing a bogus deposit. Respondent No. 2 issued notices under section 139(2) for certain assessment years, and assessments were completed under section 143(1). Assessments of M/s. Atul Traders were also done, treating the alleged deposits as bogus. Notices under section 148 were issued to both the petitioner and M/s. Atul Traders. The petitioner challenged the notices, claiming no fresh material justified them.

A counter-affidavit mentioned unexplained credits in account books of M/s. Atul Traders and Atul Industrial Corporation, leading to the notices. The Assessing Officer had previously treated the deposits as false and added them to the firms' income. The court referred to various legal precedents emphasizing that once an assessee discloses all primary facts, the assessing authority cannot reopen assessment based on a change of opinion. Notably, the court cited cases like Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO and Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO to support this principle.

The court highlighted that the assessing authority had already investigated the entries in question and concluded they were bogus. Therefore, issuing notices under section 148 solely based on a change of opinion was deemed illegal. Referring to cases like Foramer v. CIT and CIT v. Foramer France, the court reiterated that notices cannot be issued on a mere change of opinion. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned notices, with no order as to costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal principles applied, and the court's final decision to quash the notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act.