9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court had the occasion to examine the matter after passing of the final orders and not at the stage of notice. Therefore, the same cannot be made the basis for quashing the notice even before the submission of the reply by the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed - - - - - Dated:- 19-8-2002 - Judge(s) : G. S. SINGHVI., KIRAN ANAND LAL. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by G.S. SINGHVI J.- In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing notice annexure P 1 dated March 20, 2002, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 6(1), Chandigarh (respondent No. 1), under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), proposing to revise its asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 143(2) of the Act and decided the same vide order dated December 31, 1999. After about two years and three months, respondent No. 1 issued the impugned notice and called upon the petitioner to file a fresh return by observing that its income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. The detailed reasons recorded by respondent No. 1 for issuing the impugned notice are as under: "The assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3) on December 31, 1999. Deduction under section 80-I amounting to Rs. 2,59,42,908 was allowed to the assessee. Subsequently, it has been noticed from the documents furnished by the assessee that it was not eligible for deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent year 1997-98, the assessee was not entitled to any deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 2,59,42,908 has been wrongly allowed as deduction under section 80-I. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that income chargeable to tax, amounting to more than Rs. 1 lakh, has escaped assessment for the assessment year 1997-98. This income of the assessee needs to be reassessed." The ambit and scope of sections 147 and 148 of the Act was considered by the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456. After reviewing judicial precedents on the subject, their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down the following proposition: "From a combined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income-tax Officer and examine whether there was any material available on the record from which the requisite belief could be formed by the Income-tax Officer and further whether that material had any rational connection or a live link for the formation of the requisite belief. It would be immaterial whether the Income-tax Officer, at the time of making the original assessment, could or could not have found by further enquiry or investigation, whether the transaction was genuine or not if, on the basis of subsequent information, the Income-tax Officer arrives at a conclusion, after satisfying the twin conditions prescribed in section 147(a) of the Act, that the assessee had not made a full and true disclosure of the material facts at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
