Court invalidates some Income-tax Act notices, upholds others, emphasizes rational reasons for reopening, deems writ petitions maintainable.

The court found notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act invalid for certain assessment years due to insufficient reasons. It upheld the validity of notices for other years. The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen assessments, emphasizing the need for a rational connection in reasons provided. Writ petitions were deemed maintainable for deciding jurisdictional issues, and delay in filing petitions did not bar relief if there was a lack of jurisdiction. Ultimately, the court allowed writ appeals for some years, dismissed others, and deemed an interlocutory appeal unnecessary. No costs were ordered.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notices issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen assessments.
3. Maintainability of writ petitions.
4. Delay in filing writ petitions.

Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of Notices Issued u/s 148
The appellant, a trust known as Thanthi Trust, challenged the validity of notices issued u/s 148 for reopening assessments for various years. The court examined whether the reasons provided in these notices had a "live link or close nexus" with the alleged income escapement. For the assessment years 1969-70, 1971-72, and 1972-73, the court found the reasons insufficient and held the notices invalid. However, for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1973-74, the notices were upheld as valid. The court emphasized that even if one ground is sufficient, the notice can be upheld.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer
The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen assessments u/s 147(a) and 147(b). It was held that for invoking section 147(a), the escapement must be due to the assessee's omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The court cited several Supreme Court rulings to underline that the reasons must have a "rational connection or relevant bearing" on the formation of belief. The court concluded that the reasons for reopening assessments for the years 1969-70, 1971-72, and 1972-73 did not meet this criterion, whereas for 1970-71 and 1973-74, they did.

Issue 3: Maintainability of Writ Petitions
The court held that the writ petitions were maintainable for the limited purpose of deciding the jurisdictional issue. It was emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction is not completely excluded and can be invoked to determine whether there is a "live link or close nexus" in the reasons recorded for reopening assessments.

Issue 4: Delay in Filing Writ Petitions
The court rejected the argument that the appellant should be denied relief due to delay in filing the writ petitions. It was held that for a writ of prohibition, the court would not stay its hands merely on the ground of delay if there is a "patent lack of jurisdiction." The court cited various judgments to support this view and allowed the writ petitions for the assessment years 1969-70, 1971-72, and 1972-73.

Conclusion
The court allowed the writ appeals for the assessment years 1969-70, 1971-72, and 1972-73, holding the notices invalid. The writ petitions for these years were also allowed. However, the writ petition for the assessment year 1970-71 was dismissed, and the notice was upheld. The writ appeal concerning an interlocutory order was deemed unnecessary as the main writ petition was allowed. No costs were ordered.

---