TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner deposited due tax. After about three years, the Assessing Officer issued notice annexure P-1 dated August 26, 1997, under section 148 of the Act proposing reassessment of the income of the petitioner for the said assessment year on the ground that his income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. In response to the said notice, the petitioner filed the return dated October 7, 1997. This was followed by notices annexure P-2 dated February 6, 1998, issued under section 142(1), annexure P-3 dated July 2, 1998, under section 143(2), annexure P-4A dated March 6, 2000, under section 143(2), annexure P-4B dated March 6, 2000, under section 142(1) and annexure P-5 dated March 6, 2000 under section 142(1)/143(2) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petition should be dismissed as premature as no order adversely affecting-the petitioner has so far been passed. According to them, if any such order is passed, then the petitioner can avail of the remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The respondents have further averred that the notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued to the petitioner on July 2, 1998 and March 6, 2000, but he has failed to furnish any reply or explanation and has also not produced any evidence regarding the source from which the expenditure was made. As regards the petitioner's plea of the bar of limitation, the respondents have averred that the proceedings initiated against him are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s relied upon by him for believing that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment. Learned counsel submitted that after examining the report of the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Assessing Officer had unequivocally recorded that he had reason to believe that the assessee had not declared true particulars of his income and expenditure of Rs. 3,00,57,000 and, therefore, it was a case of escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 and there is no valid ground for the court's interference at this stage. He produced the file maintained by the Department to show that the Assessing Officer had recorded independent reasons before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Shri Sawhney referred to paragraphs 31 and 100 of the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmine his liability to pay tax on the total income simply because in the criminal case he has been acquitted. The petitioner's acquittal by the Special Judge, Delhi, on the charge of having conspired to bribe the Members of Parliament for exercising their vote in favour of the Government of Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao may be relevant to any other similar proceedings pending against him, but the same cannot be made the basis for quashing notices issued under section 148 or 142(1) or 143(2) of the 1961 Act, requiring him to produce documents, accounts and other evidence to prove the source of Rs. 3,00,57,000 which he is shown to have spent between July 24, 1993 and August 3, 1993. We are further of the view that the opinion formed by the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to the facts previously disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information. Since the belief is that of the Income-tax Officer, the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belie is not for the court to judge but it is open to on assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief or that the belief was not at all a bonafide one or was based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information. To that limited extent, the court may look into the conclusion arrived at by the Income-tax Officer and examine whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struck down by going into the sufficiency or correctness of the material relied upon by the assessing authority for the purpose of reopening. In C.W.P. No. 10619 of 2000--Bal Ram Jakhar v. CIT [2001] 250 ITR 393, decided on October 19, 2000, this court has held that notice issued under section 147 of the 1961 Act cannot be quashed under article 226 of the Constitution of India simply because the Central Bureau of Investigation had not pressed the charge of giving bribe against the petitioner. Some of the observations made in that decision, are extracted below: "In view of this conclusion, we would have refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the reasons recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-cum-New ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
