Court quashes reassessment notice under Income-tax Act for lack of valid reasons

The court quashed the reassessment notice under section 148 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1990-91. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer must have valid reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and must provide a basis for such belief. Mere assertion without disclosing reasoning does not confer jurisdiction for reassessment. The court held that section 147 does not allow a change of opinion without new material. As the necessary conditions for issuing the notice were not satisfied, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner and allowed the petition, quashing the notice.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to reassessment notice u/s 148 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1990-91.

Summary:
The petitioner challenged a reassessment notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1990-91. The reasons for issuing the notice included discrepancies in the computation of income, such as exclusion of certain items required to be included in the book profit under section 115J. The petitioner contended that the essential requirement for initiating proceedings under section 148 is that the Assessing Officer must have a valid reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer must record reasons for issuing the notice, reflecting the basis for holding such a belief. Mere assertion of excessive loss or depreciation allowance without disclosing the reasoning does not confer jurisdiction for reassessment. The court held that the scope of section 147 does not allow for a change of opinion without new material supporting a different conclusion from the original assessment. Relying on a previous decision, the court quashed the reassessment notice as the necessary conditions for issuing it were not satisfied, ruling in favor of the petitioner.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, holding that the notice under section 148 read with section 147 was not sustainable as the essential conditions were not met, and therefore, quashed the notice.

---