1991 (1) TMI 133 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Requirement of disclosing reasons for reopening an assessment.
3. Interpretation of the conditions under section 147(a) for assuming jurisdiction to issue notice.
4. Legal obligations of the Income-tax Officer under section 148 and 139(2) of the Act.

Analysis:

The petitioner sought to quash notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a letter rejecting the request for disclosing the grounds for issuing the notices. Additionally, a request was made to direct consideration of an application under section 273A of the Act. The petitioner was assessed for certain assessment years based on revised returns, with subsequent levy of penalty and interest. The levy of penalty was set aside on appeal, and an application under section 273A was pending. Subsequently, notices were issued to reopen the assessment for a specific year, prompting the petitioner to challenge the lack of disclosure of reasons for reopening the assessment.

The petitioner argued that the Income-tax Officer cannot reopen an assessment without disclosing the reasons as per relevant legal precedents. The court referred to decisions emphasizing the necessity of "reason to believe" and the requirement to disclose all material facts for assuming jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 147(a). However, the Revenue contended that the Income-tax Officer was not obligated to state reasons while issuing the notices under section 148, citing administrative nature of the initial proceedings and lack of statutory requirement to communicate reasons to the assessee.

The court held that section 148 mandates the Income-tax Officer to record reasons for issuing a notice, without necessitating the disclosure of reasons to the assessee as a condition for initiating proceedings. The court emphasized that the stage of issuing a notice does not involve adjudication of rights or quasi-judicial determination, requiring only the existence of reasons justifying the belief of income escapement. The court noted that the absence of stated reasons does not imply their absence, and in the present case, grounds for a reasonable belief to initiate proceedings were found in the files. The decision to make an assessment based on the reasons provided would be evaluated at a later stage after considering the case of the assessee and relevant factors.

Consequently, the court found no justification to quash the notices issued under section 148. However, it directed the second respondent to consider the pending application under section 273A and pass orders within three months. The writ petition was dismissed, subject to this direction.