Court quashes reassessment notices, finds lack of jurisdiction & time-barred issuance.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The court held that the reassessment proceedings lacked jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer did not have independent satisfaction and the reasons for reassessment were based on a different assessment year. Additionally, the court found the reassessment notices were time-barred as they were issued after the expiry of the extended period of six years. The court concluded that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose relevant material, thus the respondent authority had no jurisdiction to invoke Sections 147 and 148 for the assessment years in question.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Limitation period for issuing reassessment notices.
3. Independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
4. Pending appeals and their impact on reassessment proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act:
The petitioner contended that the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 was without jurisdiction. The court emphasized that "reason to believe" is an essential prerequisite for exercising powers under Section 147. This belief cannot be formed on mere suspicion, surmises, or conjectures. The court noted that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer indicated a borrowed satisfaction based on the assessment order of the year 2007-2008, which does not confer jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. The court concluded that the Assessing Officer did not have independent satisfaction, and the reasons to believe were based on the assessment of a different year, thus lacking jurisdiction.

2. Limitation period for issuing reassessment notices:
The petitioner argued that the reassessment notices were barred by limitation as they were issued after the expiry of the extended period of six years. The court highlighted that the twin conditions to reopen the assessment beyond four years are: (i) the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and (ii) there was no full and true disclosure of material facts by the assessee. The court found that the reasons recorded for issuing the notice under Section 148 were furnished after the expiry of the extended period of six years, making the reassessment proceedings time-barred.

3. Independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer:
The petitioner contended that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer indicated no independent application of mind but were based on the assessment order of the year 2007-2008. The court referenced several judgments to assert that the prerequisite condition for reassessment is the Assessing Officer's "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The court found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on borrowed satisfaction and not on the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind. The court cited the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited, where it was held that reassessment based on another officer's opinion is not permissible.

4. Pending appeals and their impact on reassessment proceedings:
The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings were initiated while the issue of deduction under Section 10-A was pending before the Appellate Forum, contrary to the third proviso to Section 147. The court noted that the third proviso to Section 147 states that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject of any appeal, reference, or revision. The court found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated while the appeals were pending, which is against the provisions of Section 147. The court concluded that the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and time-barred.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned notices issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act and the orders passed by the respondent rejecting the preliminary objection as to his jurisdiction. The court held that there was no material on record to establish the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully the relevant material while passing the original assessment order. Consequently, the respondent authority had no jurisdiction to invoke Section 147 and 148 of the Act for the assessment years in question.

---