Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The basic fundamental facts, relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the questions involved in all these twelve appeals are similar and, therefore, all the matters are decided by a common order.

2. To better understand the questions involved and for convenience, we shall refer to the facts in Civil Rule No. 6491 of 1998 (Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. Joint CIT (Assessment) [2000] 243 ITR 540 (Gauhati)), which are, as stated by the petitioner, that Namdang Tea Company (India) Limited was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Guwahati. The said company owned two tea estates, namely, Namdang Tea Estate and Boga-pani Tea Estate, both situated in the State of Assam. The said company was carrying on the business of growing green tea leaves in its own tea gardens and manufacturing black tea out of the said green tea leaves grown by it as well as others and further selling it in India and abroad. Under the scheme of arrangement, the tea business of the said company was transferred to Mcleod Russel (India) Limited. Subsequently, under a scheme of arrangement, the said Mcleod Russel (India) Limited merged with Eveready Industries India Limited with effect from April 1, 1996, and that is how the writ petition is filed by the petitioner company.

4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the company preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Guwahati. The appeal was partially allowed. Aggrieved by the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Department filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. A cross-objection was also filed by the company.

5. The company received a notice dated October 30/November 2, 1998, from the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, alleging that the income of the company for the assessment year 1991-92 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and that he proposes to assess/reassess the income of the said company. The company addressed a letter to the assessing authority contending, inter alia, that no income of the company for the assessment year in question had escaped assessment and such escapement of assessment, if any, was not by reason of any omission and/or failure on the part of the company either to file any return or to disclose fully and/or truly all primary and/or material facts necessary for the assessment of the said company and, therefore, the condition precedent for invoking the power under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was not fulfilled. The sine qua non for exercising the power under Section 147/148 of the Act having not been present, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the notices. The company had also filed the return under protest.

7. The respondents to the petition, namely, (1) Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range-II, Guwahati, (2) Commissioner of Income-tax, Guwahati, and (3) Union of India, through the Secretary, Government of India, Finance Department, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, filed counter by way of an affidavit, dated October 8, 1999. The affidavit has been sworn by Shri J.C. Pegu, Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-II, Guwahati, who was the Assessing Officer. The details of the affidavit filed shall be referred to subsequently. In a nutshell, the contention of the Department was that the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of an enquiry conducted by an outside authority and relying on that enquiry, the present notices have been issued. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment due to failure and/or omission on the part of the assessee to disclose the materials necessary for the purpose of assessment. In the order sheets, the Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons which led to his belief that income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs. 27,25,600 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act during the assessment year on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of his income in the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. An additional affidavit has been filed by Shri J. C. Pegu, the Assessing Officer, on November 29, 1999, disclosing the reasons for initiating action under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act and for the impugned notices. The details of the reasons shall be referred to subsequently.

10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned notices have been issued on the basis of the information sent with the letter dated June 30, 1998, to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Guwahati, and that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer clearly indicate that there was material on record on the basis of which he arrived at the conclusion that there was reason to believe that income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year has escaped assessment. On the other hand, it is urged by counsel for the respondents that the assessing authority's jurisdiction to issue the notices exercising powers under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, depends on the fact, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer can be said to have a reason to believe that any income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year ; and on the facts found, there is no material evidence on record on the basis of which the Assessing Officer could have arrived at such conclusion, and, further, the reason to believe does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer, the reason must be held in good faith and cannot be merely a pretence. It is further contended that the escaped assessment, if any, should be on account of the fact that the assessee has not produced before the assessing authority at the relevant time true and correct statement of facts necessary for the assessment of his income. On this basis, it is urged that the case is not made out by the Department for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act.