TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (12) TMI 58
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... return dated October 7, 1997. This was followed by notices annexure P-2 dated February 6, 1998, issued under section 142(1), annexure P-3 dated July 2, 1998, under section 143(2), annexure P-4A dated March 6, 2000, under section 143(2), annexure P-4B dated March 6, 2000, under section 142(1) and annexure P-5 dated March 6, 2000 under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Act vide which the petitioner was required to appear in person or through an authorised representative and to produce the documents, accounts and any other evidence in support of his return mentioned in the notice annexure P-5 dated March 6, 2000. It was pointed out in the said notice that the investigation made by the Central Bureau of Investigation had revealed that the petitioner had made payments of Rs. 3,00,57,000 between July 24, 1993, and August 3, 1993, but the same had not been reflected in the income-tax return dated October 7, 1997. He was, therefore, asked to explain the source from which payment had been made with a stipulation that on his failure to do so it would be treated as undisclosed income and added to the income already disclosed by him. The petitioner has challenged the notices mainly on the groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....show that the charge levelled against the petitioner of having bribed seven Members of Parliament has not been proved and submitted that in view of these findings there is no legal justification to continue the proceedings initiated under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act. Shri R.P. Sawhney, senior counsel for the respondents, argued that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 cannot be invalidated only on the ground that the report of the Central Bureau of Investigation was relied upon by him for believing that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment. Learned counsel submitted that after examining the report of the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Assessing Officer had unequivocally recorded that he had reason to believe that the assessee had not declared true particulars of his income and expenditure of Rs. 3,00,57,000 and, therefore, it was a case of escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 and there is no valid ground for the court's interference at this stage. He produced the file maintained by the Department to show that the Assessing Officer had recorded independent reasons before issuing notice under section 148 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tervention of this court at this stage of the proceedings. The jurisdiction of this court to interfere with the show-cause notice issued under section 148 of the Act is extremely limited and the belief formed by the competent authority cannot be set at naught simply because this court, on reappreciation of the matter, forms a different opinion. The ambit and scope of sections 147 and 148 of the Act was considered by the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456. After reviewing several judicial precedents on the subject, a two judges Bench of the Supreme Court held as under: "From a combined review of the judgments of this court, it follows that an Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under section 147(a) read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only if on the basis of specific, reliable and relevant information coming to his possession subsequently, he has reasons, 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 incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prima facie case for reassessment and reopening proceedings cannot be struck down by going into the sufficiency or correctness of the material relied upon by the assessing authority for the purpose of reopening. In C.W.P. No. 10619 of 2000--Bal Ram Jakhar v. CIT [2001] 250 ITR 393, decided on October 19, 2000, this court has held that notice issued under section 147 of the 1961 Act cannot be quashed under article 226 of the Constitution of India simply because the Central Bureau of Investigation had not pressed the charge of giving bribe against the petitioner. Some of the observations made in that decision, are extracted below: "In view of this conclusion, we would have refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the reasons recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-cum-New Assessees Circle, Bhatinda, for initiating proceedings under section 147 read with section 148 of the 1961 Act, but as Shri Mittal made repeated efforts to persuade us to nullify the notice solely on the ground that the Special Judge, Delhi, has not framed charges against the petitioner, we are constrained to observe that an order, like the one passed by the Special Judge, De....