Calcutta High Court
Bibhuti Bhusan Ghosh vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 8 January, 1992
Equivalent citations: [1993]203ITR536(CAL)
Author: Suhas Chandra Sen
Bench: Suhas Chandra Sen
JUDGMENT Suhas Chandra Sen, J.
1. An order was passed on December 18, 1991, disposing of the case. Later, a prayer was made for further hearing. It was also mentioned that the petitioner was 88 years old and will not be able to stand protracted investigation. Under these circumstances, I decide to rehear the matter.
2. A point has been raised that there was no information in the possession of the Income-tax Officer to issue a notice under Section 148. I asked the Department to produce the records and satisfy me that the Income-tax Officer had come into possession of any information after the completion of the assessment for the assessment year 1979-80.
3. The only information on the basis of which the reopening has been done is the confession made by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings that certain fixed deposits standing in the names of various persons in various banks were really moneys which belonged to the assessee and invested in those names.
4. From this contention, it does not follow logically that whatever fixed deposits standing in the names of those persons belong to the assessee. The Income-tax Officer has not received any information that similar fixed deposits standing in the names of various parties mentioned in the recorded reasons are fixed deposits made by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer merely suspects that since the assessee has disclosed that certain fixed deposits were made by the assessee in the benami names of certain other persons, any fixed deposit standing in names of those persons must belong to the assessee. This, at best, is a case of surmise or conjecture. But no material or information has come into the possession of the Income-tax Officer after the completion of the assessment proceeding as to any investments made by the assessee in the names of any other persons. The Income-tax Officer has not made any investigation about various fixed deposits standing in the names of various persons and found out that those were standing in fictitious names. The Income-tax Officer has issued the notice under Section 148 merely on suspicion.
5. Under these circumstances, after carefully looking into the records which were produced before this court, I am of the view that there was no fresh material or information in the possession of the Income-tax Officer which would enable him to issue notice under Section 148.
6. Therefore, the order dated December 18, 1991, is recalled. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the writ petition. This order will not prevent the Income-tax Officer from making further investigation and to take steps thereafter in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition is disposed of finally as above. There will be no order as to costs.