TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting the petitioner's objection to the show cause notice. In WPT No.235 of 2018 the petitioner has additionally challenged the sanction/approval accorded under Section 151 of the Act based on which the notice under Section 148 (1) has been issued against the petitioners. 2. Since challenge to the reasons recorded under Section 151 and the show cause notice issued under Section 148 (1) are based on common grounds all the four writ petitions are disposed of by common order albeit three of them were reserved on one day and fourth i.e. WPT No.238 of 2018 was reserved a day after. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs (decided on 14-10-2014) and other connected matters (affirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.11916 of 2015 by order dated 8-7-2015), decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v A. Raman & Co.AIR 1968 SC 49 : (1968) 67 ITR 11 : (1968) 1 SCR 10, decision of Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v Anand and Company 1990 SCC Online Cal 421 : (1991) 191 ITR 82 : (1992) 101 CTR 276, and the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax- VI, New Delhi v Usha International Limited 2012 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB). 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, per contra, would submit that the Principal, CIT has recorded cogent reasons as required under Section 151 (1) read with Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....read with Sections 147 & 148 (2) of the Act for issuance of re-assessment of notice under Section 148 (1) would be treated as a valid exercise of power has been dealt with by the Supreme Court, time and again. 10. In Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) the Supreme Court spelt out the twin requirements which had to be satisfied as a sine qua non for a valid reassessment notice: "firstly the AO must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause 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 acting on fresh information. Since the belief is that of the Income-tax Officer, the sufficiency of reasons for forming this belief is not for the court to judge but it is open to an assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief or that the belief was not at all a bona fide one or was based on vague, irrelevant and non- specific information. To that limite....