9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fferent writ petitions relate to four different notices for different assessment years, O.J.C. No. 1621 of 1979 being in respect of the assessment year 1972-73, O.J.C. No. 1622 of 1979 being in respect of the assessment year 1973-74, O.J.C. No. 1623 of 1979 being in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 and O.J.C. No. 1624 of 1979 being in respect of the assessment year 1975-76. The Income-tax Officer has issued the notices under section 148 of the Act, he having reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment years in question. The petitioner's case briefly stated is that the petitioner had duly filed its returns for the assessment years in question and for the assessment year 1972-73, the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 47 of the Act, the impugned notices and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The petitioner has further asserted that it is entitled to know the reasons and the materials which formed the basis of satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer for invoking his jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act, so that it can give an explanation to the show-cause notice issued and the same not having been supplied, a direction should be issued to the Income-tax Officer to supply the reasons and all the materials to the assessee. In the return filed on behalf of the opposite parties, it is the common stand in all these writ petitions that on the materials before the Incometax Officer, he had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee to make a return " or " to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year ". The expression " reason to believe " postulates belief and the existence of reasons for that belief. The existence of reasons for the belief is certainly justiciable but not the sufficiency of the reasons. In other words, if an assessee alleges that the Income-tax Officer had no material before him for satisfying the requirement that he had " reason to believe ", then the Income-tax Officer must establish the same. While interpreting a similar provision of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, namely, section 34, in the case of S. Narayanappa v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219, the Supreme Court observed (headnote): "Two conditions mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Officer did not hold the belief that there had been such nondisclosure. In other words, the existence of the belief can be challenged by the assessee but not the sufficiency of the reasons for the belief. " In the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1970] 75 ITR 367, the Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid view. In this view of the matter, since the petitioner had made an assertion in the writ petition that the Income-tax Officer had no material from which he could have entertained the reasonable belief with regard to the pre-conditions for exercising jurisdiction under section 147, we had adjourned this case in the course of hearing to enable the Department to produce the relevant file, wherein reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
