Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr. Sahib Ram Giri vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 7 January, 2008
Equivalent citations: [2008]301ITR294(RAJ)
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the reassess- 1 ment proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the assessment year 1994-95, vide notice dated May 31, 2000 (annexure 2), issued by the Assessing Officer in exercise of the power conferred by Sections 147,148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act of 1961" hereinafter).
2. The relevant facts in a nutshell are that on April 2, 1996, the petitioner- 2 assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 1994-95 declaring income of Rs. 46,530. It appears that certain tax evasion petitions were received against the petitioner-assessee, therefore, enquiries were got conducted by the Assessing Officer and on the basis of the information gathered during the enquiries, for the reasons recorded in writing, the Assessing Officer, after seeking approval of a competent authority, initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act of 1961 against the petitioner-assessee, by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. In pursuance of the notice, the assessee filed return on June 12, 2000, declaring the same income, i.e., Rs. 46,530 as returned on April 2, 1996.
3. The reassessment proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner-- assessee for the assessment years 1996-97,1997-98,1998-99 and 1999-2000. The reassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer for the aforesaid assessment years were quashed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "the IT AT" hereinafter) on appeals being preferred by the petitioner-assessee, vide order dated August 18, 2006, on the ground that the reasons recorded for initiation of reassessment proceedings were not supplied by the Assessing Officer to the petitioner-assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings even on demand being raised on his behalf.
4. The learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal opined that the Assessing Officer is under an obligation to supply the reasons to the assessee for initiating the reassessment proceedings and is required to dispose of the objections against the reasons by passing a speaking order as to how and why the objections are not acceptable. Accordingly, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeals preferred by the petitioner-assessee with the following directions:
Therefore, we set aside the assessment orders framed under Section 147/143(3) of the Act for all the assessment years under consideration and send them back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to frame the assessment orders, de novo, after supplying copies of reasons to the assessee and after seeking objections against the same. The Assessing Officer shall also decide the assessee's objections by passing a speaking order and, thereafter, if it so required, he may proceed to frame the reassessment orders as per law. The Assessing Officer should not repeat the same assessment orders and has to pass reasons orders.
5. In compliance with the directions issued by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated August 18, 2006, as aforesaid, the certified copy of the reasons for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 for the assessment year 1994-95, was supplied by the Assessing Officer to the petitioner-assessee, vide communication dated July 3, 2007 (annexure 5). On receipt of the reasons, vide communication dated July 17, 2007, the petitioner-assessee apprised the Assessing Officer that from the perusal of the copy of the reasons supplied, it appears that one or two pages are missing. The petitioner-assessee also demanded the copies of the order-sheets drawn by the Income-tax Officer (for short "the ITO" hereinafter) concerned for the years 1990, 1994, 1995 and subsequent years, wherein the Income-tax Officer authorised the Inspectors to make certain enquires and submit the report.
6. The Assessing Officer, vide communication dated October 16, 2007, apprised the petitioner that the demand for the order-sheet of 1990 does not convey any meaning, as no date or assessment year is mentioned and further that the same does not pertain to the assessment proceedings relevant to the assessment years 1994-95 to 2000-01 under consideration. Thereafter, vide communication dated October 19, 2007, record and further that there is no order-sheet said to have been recorded by Shri A.S. Mehra, is available on record.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner-assessee was again directed to file his objections latest by November 5, 2007. Vide application dated November 2, 2007, the petitioner-assessee again sought time for filing the objections. However, the request made by the petitioner-assessee was turned down by the Assessing Officer, vide communication dated November 2, 2007 (annexure 14), and the petitioner-assessee was directed to attend the date of hearing on November 5, 2007. On the said date, the petitioner-assessee submitted the objections termed as "partial objections" against the reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1994-95. It appears that the petitioner-assessee made further request for adjournment for a period of one month which was rejected by the Assessing Officer, vide communication dated November 5, 2007.
8. It is contended by learned Counsel that in view of the admission of the Assessing Officer, vide communication dated October 26, 2007, that no order-sheets are maintained/available, the reassessment proceedings shall be deemed to have been initiated without recording the reasons prior to issue of notice. Learned Counsel further submits that non-availability of the petitioner's statement said to have been recorded by the inspector who has submitted the report dated April 17,1990, also shows that a wrong fact has been mentioned in the said report which has been made basis for initiating the reassessment proceedings, therefore, the notice issued on the basis of incorrect facts, cannot be sustained.
9. It is settled position of law that the notice under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act of 1961, can be issued where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income, profits and gains chargeable to tax, had been underassessed or escaped assessment and further that such escapement or underassessment was occasioned by reason of failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the relevant assessment year. The formation of the belief by the Assessing Officer is essentially within his subjective satisfaction. This Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot examine the sufficiency of reasons for forming a belief by the Assessing Officer that income had escaped assessment.
10. From the perusal of the various documents placed on record and the facts as noticed above, it appears that the petitioner-assessee is adopting the dilatory tactics inasmuch as the reassessment proceedings are going to be time barred. Admittedly, in compliance with the directions issued by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, a certified copy of the reasons recorded for initiating the reassessment proceedings has already been supplied to the petitioner-assessee by the Assessing Officer. Even the documents demanded by the petitioner-assessee available on record have already been supplied to him and regarding the remaining documents the factual position stands clarified by the Assessing Officer.
11. It is to be noticed that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated by the Assessing Officer for the reasons recorded in writing, placed on record as annexure 5. It is not understandable as to how on the basis of non-availability of a few documents demanded by the petitioner-assessee, the reassessment proceedings initiated for the reasons recorded in detail can be held to be illegal. Moreover, the interest of the petitioner-assessee stands sufficiently safeguarded by the learned Tribunal while passing the order annexure 1, dated August 18, 2006. If, according to the petitioner, on account of non-availability of certain documents on record, some of the reasons recorded for initiating the reassessment proceedings are not sustainable in law then, he is at liberty to raise his objections in this regard before the Assessing Officer. To say the least, the challenge of the petitioner-assessee to the reassessment proceedings on the grounds set out in the petition is absolutely misconceived.
12. Thus, no ground for interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, is made out. The writ petition preferred is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.