TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (6) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....79, and July 25, 1980, respectively. The assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 was completed under section 143(1) on March 1, 1982, while for the assessment year 1980-81 was completed under section 143(3) on January 11, 1983. The Income-tax Officer issued notice under section 148 read with section 147(a) for the assessment year 1979-80 on July 24, 1982. From the reasons recorded by him for reopening the assessment (copies of which were furnished to the court and the petitioners' advocate at the time of hearing), the material on the basis of which he formed the belief that the income of the petitioners for the year had escaped assessment by reason of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment appear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....furnished. In the case of the assessment year 1979-80, the Income-tax Officer was satisfied with the correctness of the return on the basis of material placed by the assessee on record and completed the assessment under section 143(1) without requiring the presence of the assessee. For the assessment year 1980-81, the assessment was finalised after enquiry under section 143 (3) computing the total income at Rs. 64,099 as against the disclosed income of Rs. 7,918. There is no dispute that the settled law is that sufficiency of material for formation of belief that income had escaped assessment is not justiciable. However, whether any material at all existed for the formation of such a belief can certainly be examined by the court. But, any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery had in fact worked triple shift. But the Income-tax Officer chose to complete the assessment under section 143(1) being satisfied on the basis of the return and the material furnished along with it by the assessee. Moreover, in the absence of material, assuming that the Income-tax Officer was justified, the Income-tax Officer might have been justified in forming the belief that he could not be certain whether the plant and machinery had worked triple shift as claimed. It is certainly not possible to justify the formation of belief that depreciation was allowed in excess so that income could be said to have escaped assessment. As regards export markets development allowance, the Income-tax Officer's observation is that, under section 35B....