AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) The present appeal arises from order dated 15th February 2016 dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4531/2015 declining interference with the notice dated 27.3.2015 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred as 'the Act') for fresh assessment with regard to Assessment Year 2008-09. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that earlier during assessment proceedings, a sum of Rs. Twenty lacs was disallowed as expenditure shown in the profit and loss account by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner Income-Tax (Appeals) allowed the same on. The Respondent was unsuccessful before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 25.11.2013. The application by the Respondent under Section 154 of the Act was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng on 259 ITR 19 (G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. Income-tax Officer & others) and a Division Bench order of this Court reported in [2005] 144 Taxman 292 (Raj.) (Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Banswara Syntex Ltd). So long as Assessing Officer has power to re-open the assessment, for reasons recorded to his satisfaction the assessee must file his reply and if aggrieved can pursue his remedies in appeal. The writ petition challenging the notice for re-assessment was not maintainable. If an alternative statutory remedy is available the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 must not be exercised and that too against a show cause notice. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. Further proceedings for re-a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction to issue a notice for the assessment or re-assessment beyond the period of four years but within the period of eight years, from the end of the year in question." The duty of the assessee extended to fully and truly disclosing all primary and relevant facts and if the Assessing Authority was of the opinion, on reasonable grounds, that there had been any non-disclosure of primary fact, which could have been a material bearing on the question of under-assessment, it would give him jurisdiction. We may profitably refer in this regard to 79 ITR 603 (SC) (Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha & others) followed in 1972 (3) SCC 234 (Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta) holding as follows:- "9. It is abu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was held that from the report submitted by the Income Tax Officer to the Commissioner it was clear that he could not have had reasons to believe that on account of assessee's omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 10. In our judgment, the law laid down by this Court in the above case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. There can be no manner of doubt that the words "reason to believe" suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Income Tax Officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The Income Tax Officer would be acting withou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r occasion the Assessing Officer himself had disallowed it to the extent of Rs. 20 Lacs only after consideration of the materials on the record. It is the very same return which is sought to be re-opened. Furthermore, though the Department on 05th March 2015 wrote to the assessee that M/s PACL Limited had denied the agreement, no date of denial is mentioned much less is there any reference to it in the reasons recorded for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd relied upon by the appellant has no application in the facts of the case and is distinguishable as the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it was open for the assessee to raise all objections before the Assessing Officer in response to the noti....