TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y furnished his return for the assessment year 1994-95 and the assessment on the same had been completed on December 1, 1995, at a total income of Rs. 36,000. The petitioner had solemnized the marriage of his daughter during the financial year 1993-94 relevant to the assessment year 1994-95. Unfortunately, the marriage was unsuccessful and the petitioner's daughter filed a petition for divorce. In the divorce proceedings before the District judge, she furnished an affidavit wherein she had stated that her father, i.e., the petitioner, had spent between seven to eight lakhs rupees on her marriage. When this affidavit came to the notice of the Assessing Officer, he referred to the income-tax records of the petitioner and found that the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the statute for settlement of disputes as the High Court, in the exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution, is not expected to act as an appellate authority or a revisional authority. The validity of proceedings under section 147 can well be examined by the appellate authorities provided under the Act. However, it is also equally well settled that the assessing authority cannot assume jurisdiction to reopen an assessment wrongly unless the conditions for reopening are satisfied. The assessee can move this court and challenge the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice under section 148 for want of jurisdiction. In such a situation, the question of pursuing the alternative remedy does not arise at all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 437. The relevant observations at page 445 are reproduced below : "Once there exist reasonable grounds for the Income-tax Officer to form the above belief, that would be sufficient to clothe him with jurisdiction to issue notice. Whether the grounds are adequate or not is not a matter for the court to investigate. The sufficiency of the grounds which induce the Income-tax Officer to act is, therefore, not a justiciable issue. It is, of course open to the assessee to contend that the Income-tax Officer did not hold the belief that there had been such non-disclosure. The existence of the belief can be challenged by the assessee but not the sufficiency of the reasons for the belief. The expression 'reason to believe' does not mean a purely s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
