Independent belief for reopening assessment is mandatory; reassessment failed when the officer acted only on superior directions.

Reopening of assessment fails where the Income-tax Officer does not independently form the requisite belief; a proposal made merely at the behest of superior authorities does not satisfy the jurisdictional condition, so the reassessment notice and ensuing proceedings were quashed. The challenge to service of notice was rejected because the assessee had later participated, sought recall, filed objections, and was given further opportunity, making the affixture-based service sufficient in the circumstances. The objection to approval for reopening also failed: the incorrect description of the assessee as a Hindu undivided family was treated as a technical defect, and the approving authority had applied its mind to the recorded reasons.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether notices under section 148 were invalid for want of proper service; (ii) whether the approval for reopening was vitiated because the assessee was wrongly described and no fresh reasons were recorded; (iii) whether the Income-tax Officer had independently formed the requisite belief for reopening under sections 147 and 148.

Issue (i): Whether notices under section 148 were invalid for want of proper service.

Analysis: The notices were first attempted by registered post and returned unserved. Service was thereafter effected by affixture. The petitioners were not left without knowledge of the proceedings, as they participated at later stages, sought recall of the ex parte assessment, filed objections, and were given further opportunity in reassessment proceedings. In these circumstances, the challenge based on want of proper service was not sustained.

Conclusion: The objection to service was rejected and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the approval for reopening was vitiated because the assessee was wrongly described and no fresh reasons were recorded.

Analysis: The initial proposal had incorrectly described the assessee as a Hindu undivided family instead of an individual. The record showed that the same recorded reasons supported the later proposal and that the subsequent step was only to correct the status of the assessee. The approving authority had applied its mind to the recorded reasons, and the defect was treated as a technical error not affecting validity.

Conclusion: The objection to approval was rejected and was against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Income-tax Officer had independently formed the requisite belief for reopening under sections 147 and 148.

Analysis: The correspondence on record showed that the Income-tax Officer and his predecessor had expressed doubt about taxability and considered the amount not fit for assessment, but later submitted the proposal only after directions from superior authorities. The Court held that the statutory belief had to be that of the Income-tax Officer himself and not the result of mere compliance with directions from higher officers. Since the officer had not independently formed the requisite belief, the jurisdictional condition for reopening was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid for want of the Income-tax Officer's own belief and was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment notice and all proceedings founded on it were quashed because the jurisdictional precondition for reopening was not met, while the ancillary challenges to service and approval failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For reopening an assessment under sections 147 and 148, the requisite belief must be independently formed by the Income-tax Officer concerned; if the proposal is made merely at the behest of superior authorities without such belief, the assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law.

---