TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e writ petitions. The grievance of the petitioner, as made out by learned counsel for the petitioner in these writ petitions, is that the petitioner is an income-tax assessee; he is submitting his income-tax returns every year and he has submitted his income-tax returns for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. Be that as it may, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, he had received two notices dated October 17, 2000, from the Income-tax Officer, Ward No. 1 Bijapur, under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, alleging that the income of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid two assessment years has escaped assessments within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, and also calling upon him to submit additional return in the prescribed form in respect of his income for the aforesaid two assessment years. The said impugned notices are alleged to have been issued in the proceedings initiated under sections 148 and 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assailing the correctness of the said notices, the petitioner has presented these writ petitions. The principal submission canvassed by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d recorded by the competent authority. To substantiate his submission, he placed the original records before this court and submitted that at page No. 1 of the original record, the proceedings have been specifically recorded on October 17, 2000. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the writ petitions filed by the petitioner are liable to be dismissed in limine by imposing exemplary costs for not disclosing his capital gain derived from selling the plots, as the petitioner himself has appeared before the assessing authority on August 16, 2000, and gave his statement on oath admitting that he has sold 56 plots between 1986 to 1996. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the unequivocal admission made by the petitioner before the authority on August 16, 2000, has been intentionally and deliberately suppressed by him in these writ petitions and, on the ground of suppression of material facts also, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed with costs. I have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned senior standing counsel for the respondent. After thorough evaluation of the entire materials available on rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening of the case in the facts of this case. It will be open to the assessee to prove that the assumption of facts made in the notice was erroneous. The assessee may also prove that no new facts came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer after completion of the assessment proceeding. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The questions of fact and law are left open to be investigated and decided by the assessing authority. The appellant will be entitled to take all points before the assessing authority." In the case of Dr. V. Mohan Das v. Deputy CIT [1991] 188 ITR 727 (Ker), which reads as follows: "In reply, counsel for the Revenue submitted that the first respondent was not required to state reasons while issuing exhibits P12 and P13. Existence of reason to believe that there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to make an assessment or not is a matter to be considered at a later stage after considering the case of the assessee and other relevant factors." In view of the above settled law, I am of the considered view that, neither has the petitioner made out any prima facie case to interfere in the impugned notices issued by the respondent nor has he made out any case to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the competent authority has recorded its finding for initiating the proceedings as envisaged under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. Because no reasons are stated as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, it does not mean that there are no reasons. The original file made available by learned counsel for the respondent discloses that there are good grounds for reasonable belief to initiate proceedings. Whether the reasons are sufficient to make an assessment or not is a matter to be considered at a later stage, after considering the case of the assessee and other relevant factors. The only requirement is two distinct conditions must be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer can assume jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
