Validity of Income Tax Act Section 148 notice upheld in reassessment proceedings

The court upheld the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the reassessment proceedings, finding prima facie material supporting the belief that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment. The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the Assessing Officer had proper grounds for reopening the assessment and rejecting the petitioner's objections. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Legitimacy of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Examination of the "reason to believe" by the Assessing Officer.
4. Allegation of change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.
5. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment based on information from another authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner challenged the validity of a notice dated 31.03.2021 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, proposing to assess/reassess the income/loss for the assessment year 2015-16. The notice was issued on the grounds that the ACIT had reasons to believe that the petitioner's income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The court referred to the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO, emphasizing that at the stage of notice, the court only needs to see if there is prima facie material for reopening the case, without delving into the sufficiency or correctness of the material.

2. Legitimacy of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act:
The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings were unjustified as the Income Tax Officer-3 (5), Lakhimpur Kheri, had previously inquired into the petitioner's transactions and accepted her submissions, dropping further proceedings. However, the court noted that the earlier order did not bear any number, date, or official seal, raising doubts about its genuineness. Moreover, the court clarified that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 is permissible if the requisite conditions exist, irrespective of earlier inquiries.

3. Examination of the "reason to believe" by the Assessing Officer:
The ACIT's reason for issuing the notice was based on an investigation revealing that M/s KCGP Share Broking Service Pvt. Ltd. provided bogus accommodation entries to various beneficiaries, including the petitioner. The ACIT believed that the petitioner had introduced her undisclosed income into her books of account through artificial transactions. The court highlighted that the "reason to believe" must be based on prima facie material, as established in previous Supreme Court judgments.

4. Allegation of change of opinion by the Assessing Officer:
The petitioner contended that the reassessment amounted to a change of opinion, which is not permissible. The court referred to the Supreme Court's explanation in CIT v. Techspan India (P) Ltd., stating that a change of opinion implies a previously formed opinion, which was not the case here. The court found that the Assessing Officer had not formed any opinion regarding the reasons for the notice under Section 148 before issuing it, thus rejecting the petitioner's argument of change of opinion.

5. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment based on information from another authority:
The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer acted on the report of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-3(3), Kolkata, and not on his own "reasons to believe." The court examined the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and found that he had conducted his own investigation and reviewed the petitioner's income tax return and related documents before forming his belief. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, which allows reopening of assessment based on subsequent reliable information, provided the Assessing Officer forms his own belief.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the notice under Section 148 and the reassessment proceedings were valid as there was prima facie material for the Assessing Officer to believe that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no illegality in the order rejecting the petitioner's objections against the notice. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

---