TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (9) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 1991-92 declaring an income of Rs. 2,890. It claimed deduction under section 80-I of the Act on the premise that it had set up a new industrial unit. By an order passed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the petitioner and determined its taxable income at Rs. 3,94,890. An application filed by the petitioner under section 154 was rejected by the Assessing Officer vide order dated September 4, 1992. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed the order of the Assessing Officer and accepted the petitioner's claim for deduction. In the meanwhile, the Assessing Officer passed a regular assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, He again disallowed the petitioner's claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. I, therefore, propose to reassess the income for the said assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within 30 days from the date of service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form of your income for the said assessment year. This notice is being issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income-tax.. the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Reasons recorded in annexure P-11 1. From the perusal of assessment records for the assessment year 199192, it is observed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80-I at Rs. 1,59,657. However, the assessee had nowhere disclosed that a separate unit had been set up by it during th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) and (C)(iv) of Explanation to section 147. It is also noticed that there is no mention in the assessment order dated June 28, 1993, about the facts relevant to setting up of a separate unit since the income as aforesaid has escaped assessment. Accordingly, issue notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." The petitioner submitted representation dated May 30, 1996 (annexure P12) to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak, against the proposed reassessment and then filed this petition for quashing notice annexure P-9 and consequential proceedings by contending that the impugned notice is ultra vires the provisions of section 148 read with section 147 of the Act. It has averred that respondent No. 2 did not have any material be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mittal pointed out that the petitioner had placed all the documents before the Assessing Officer in the proceedings under sections 143 and 154 of the Act and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any concealment of the relevant facts from the Assessing Officer resulting in escapement of income. Shri R. P. Sawhney reiterated the objection raised to the maintainability of the writ petition and argued that the same should be dismissed because the petitioner has failed to avail of the statutory alternative remedies. He further argued that the reasons assigned by respondent No. 2 for forming a belief that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment do not suffer from any legal infirmity. Shri Sawhney submitted that at this stage, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, which he must record, to believe that, by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for his assessment during the concluded assessment proceedings, any part of his income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax has escaped assessment. He may start reassessment proceedings either because some fresh facts had come to light which were not previously disclosed or some information with regard to the facts previously disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case Of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but ....