M/S.ANKIT AGROCHEM PRIVATE LIMITED V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and ANR.

SAW/1101/2017

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Ankit Agrochem Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the dismissal of their writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The notice was issued by the AO based on findings during the assessment proceedings for the year 2014-15, which revealed that the company had received share application money from entities involved in providing bogus accommodation entries. The appellant argued that the AO did not adequately address their objections and that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion. However, the court upheld the validity of the reassessment, citing the existence of a rational nexus between the reasons recorded and the belief that income had escaped assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 760218 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors., Income Tax Officer vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors., Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shiv Ratan Soni, Smt. Kiran Kanwar vs. Union of India, Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta, M/s. S.Ganga Saran & Sons (Pvt.) Ltd., Calcutta vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors., ACIT VS. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brockers Private Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K K BISSA
• Assessee Lawyers: NIRAJ JAIN
• Keywords: Escape of Income Assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Notice under section 148; Reassessment
• Section: 147; 148; 143(1); 68

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1101 / 2017 M/s Ankit Agrochem Pvt. Ltd., A-21, IIIrd Floor, Room No. 5, Sadulganj, Bikaner Through Its Director Shri AvinashModi S/o Shri Arun Kumar Modi, Aged 37 Years, Resident of A-21, Sadulganj, Bikaner. ----Appellant Versus 1. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Income Tax Department, Bikaner. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Room No. 52, Income Tax Office, Rani Bazar, Bikaner. ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Niraj Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K.Bissa _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment Per Hon’ble Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J. 18 th December, 2017 1. This special appeal is directed against order dated 13.9.17 of the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby a writ petition preferred by the appellant questioning the legality of notice dated 20.2.17 issued by the Assessing Officer, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Bikaner (hereinafter referred as “AO”), under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2013-14 and the order dated 2.6.17 rejecting the objections raised by the appellant, stands dismissed. (2 of 15) [SAW-1101/2017] 2. The facts relevant are that the appellant filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 28.9.13, disclosing total income at Rs.7,66,540/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. On 20.2.17, AO issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act proposing to assess/re-assess the income of the appellant for the said A.Y. and required him to deliver return in the prescribed form before the expiry of 30 days from the date of service of the notice. The appellant vide letter dated 2.3.17 requested the AO to supply the reasons recorded for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. The AO vide letter dated 10.3.17 supplied the reasons recorded for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act to the appellant. The appellant vide communication dated 14.3.17 requested to treat the return filed on his behalf for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 28.9.13 as filed in compliance of notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. On 19.5.17, the appellant submitted its objections questioning the legality of the notice and re- assessment proceeding initiated pursuant thereto. The appellant also demanded certified copies of the relevant documents on the basis of which the reasons for initiating re-assessment proceedings were recorded. The objections raised by the assessee questioning the validity of re-assessment proceedings stood rejected by the AO vide order dated 2.6.17. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge with the observations that the objections raised by the assessee being totally factual, no fault can be found in the order observing that such objections can only be adjudicated at the time of dealing with the assessment order. (3 of 15) [SAW-1101/2017] Hence, this intra court appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “ GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors.”, 259 ITR 19(SC), contended that it was bounden duty of the AO to dispose of the objections filed by the appellant in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act before proceeding with the assessment, by a speaking order. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of order makes it clear that none of the objections raised have been dealt with by the AO. Learned counsel submitted that the documents forming basis for initiating re-assessment proceedings were not even supplied to the appellant and thus, no effective opportunity to file objections to the notice issued was extended by the AO to the appellant. It is submitted that by way of objections raised, the appellant had questioned assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act and therefore, the same were required to be dealt with at this stage and the decision thereon cannot be deferred till time assessment order is passed and thus, the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in observing that the objection raised being totally factual can only be adjudicated at the time of dealing with the assessment order. Learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the reasons recorded reveal that the AO has not spelled out as to how on the basis of the information/material available he has formed the opinion that the income has escaped assessment. Learned counsel submitted that in the instant case, there exists no live link or close nexus between material before the AO and the belief (4 of 15) [SAW-1101/2017] formed and thus, the mandatory pre-conditions for exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act cannot be said to have been satisfied. In support of the contentions, learned counsel has relied upon a decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of “Income Tax Officer vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das”, (1976)103 ITR 437 (SC), “Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors.”, (1971) 79 ITR603 (SC) and Bench decisions of this court in the matters of “Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shiv Ratan Soni”, (2005) 279 ITR 261 and “Smt. Kiran Kanwar vs. Union of India”, (D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.246/16, decided on 4.8.16). Learned counsel submitted that the appellant had disclosed fully and truly all material particulars while filing the return and therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated on mere change of opinion is ex facie without jurisdiction. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that during the assessment proceedings for the year 2014-15, it was revealed that assessee has received share application money to the tune of Rs.2.2 crore from the various entities in the financial year 2012-13 which was utilised during the year and subsequently returned in the financial year 2013-14. Learned counsel submitted that all the 9 entities from which the assessee has received share application money were only engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries of bogus nature which was further confirmed by the directors, dummy directors/key persons of the above entities in their respective statements. Drawing the attention of the court to the reasons recorded by the AO before issuing the notice under (5 of 15) [SAW-1101/2017] Section 148 of the Act, learned counsel submitted that the information received from Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata was further examined by the AO and it was noticed that the appellant company had received and utilised the money alleged to have been received from bogus sources lacking genuineness, creditworthiness and genuine identity, which fall within the purview of Section 68 of the Act. Learned counsel would submit that there exists rational nexus between reasons and the belief formed by the AO that income had escaped assessment and thus, the reassessment proceeding initiated cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that the sufficiency of the reasons for the formation of the belief cannot be challenged by the assessee. As a matter of fact, while filing the objections, the appellant has invoked the merits of the material on record, which shall be obviously decided the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and thus, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition does not warrant any interference in intra court appeal jurisdiction. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, Section 147 of the Act, an AO is empowered to initiate reassessment proceedings if he has reason to believe that any income of the assessee chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. As per mandate of Section 148, before making assessment, reassessment or recomputation of income chargeable to tax under Section 147, the AO is under an obligation to issue notice to the assessee, after recording the reasons for initiating (6 of 15) [SAW-1101/2017] the reassessment proceedings in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 148, forming basis for the belief that any income of the assessee chargeable to tax for the relevant assessment year has escaped assessment. It is well settled that the belief entertained by the AO must not be arbitrary or irrational, it must be reasonable and based on material on record. The assumption of the jurisdiction by the AO under the Act pre-supposes due application of mind on the material on record and formation of the belief by the AO that the income has escaped assessment cannot be based on whims and fancy, there must exist rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief. 7. In the matter of “Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta”, (1961)41 I.T.R.191 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the ambit and scope of the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax, 1922, which were similar to the provisions of Section 147 of the Act of 1961 explained the purports of Section 34, as under:- “To confer jurisdiction under this section to issue notice in respect of assessments beyond the period of four years, but within a period of eight years, from the end of the relevant year two conditions have therefore to be satisfied. The first is that the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have been under-assessed. The second is that he must have also reason to believe that such “under-assessment”, has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return of his income under section 22, or (ii) omission or failure on the part of an assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year. Both these conditions are conditions precedent to be satisfied before the Income- tax Officer could have jurisdiction to issue a notice for the assessment or reassessment beyond the period of four years, but within the period of eight years, from the end of the year in question.” (7 of 15) [SAW-1101/2017] The Hon'ble Supreme court further observed that it is duty of every assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. But, his duty does not extend beyond this. The Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that once all primary facts are before the Assessing Authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure . It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. 8. In Lakhmani Mewal Das’s case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: “Production before the Income-tax Officer of the account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence amount to disclosure contemplated by law. The duty of the assessee in any case does not extend beyond making a true and full disclosure of primary facts. Once he has done that his duty ends. It is for the Income-tax Officer to draw the correct inference from the primary facts. It is no responsibility of the assessee to advice the Income-tax Officer with regard to the inference which he should draw from the primary facts. If an Income-tax Officer draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessment. The grounds or reasons which lead to the formation of the belief contemplated by section 147(a) of the Act must have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income of the assessee from assessment because of his failure or omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Once there exist reasonable grounds for the Income-tax Officer to form the above belief, that would be sufficient to clothe him with jurisdiction to issue notice. Whether the grounds are adequate or not is not a matter for the court to investigate. The sufficiency of the grounds which induce the Income-tax Officer to act is, therefore, not a justiciable issue. It is, of course, open to the assessee (8 of 15) [SAW-1101/2017] to contend that the Income-tax Officer did not hold the belief that there had been such non-disclosure. The existence of the belief can be challenged by the assessee but not the sufficiency of the reasons for the belief. The expression “reason to believe” does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. The reason must be held in good faith. It cannot be merely a pretense. It is open to the court to examine whether the reasons for the formation of the belief have a rational connection with or a relevant bearing on the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Income- tax Officer in starting proceedings in respect of income escaping assessment is open to challenge in a court of law.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed :- “As stated earlier, the reasons for the formation of the belief must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income -tax Officer and the formation of his belief that there has been escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.” (emphasis supplied) 9. In the matter of 'M/s. S.Ganga Saran & Sons (Pvt.) Ltd., Calcutta vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors.', (1981) 3 SCC, 143, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “6. It is well settled as a result of several decisions of this Court that two distinct conditions must be satisfied before the Income Tax Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 147(a). First, he must have reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and secondly, he must have reason to believe that such escapement is by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. If either of these conditions is not fulfilled, the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer would be without jurisdiction. The important words under Section 147(a) are “has reason to believe” and (9 of 15) [SAW-1101/2017] these words are stronger than the words “ is satisfied”. The belief entertained by the Income Tax Officer must not be arbitrary or irrational. It must be reasonable or in other words it must be based on reasons which are relevant and material. The court, of course, cannot investigate into the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons which have weighed with the Income Tax Officer in coming to the belief, but the court can certainly examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a bearing on the matters in regard to which he is required to entertain the belief before he can issue notice under Section 147(a). If there is no rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief, so that, on such reasons, no one properly instructed on facts and law could reasonably entertain the belief, the conclusion would be inescapable that the Income Tax Officer could not have reason to believe that any such escapement was by reason of the assessee had escaped assessment and such escapement was by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and the notice issued by him would be liable to be struck down as invalid.” (emphasis supplied) 10. Similar view is taken by the Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal’s case (supra). 11. In “ACIT VS. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brockers Private Limited”, (2008) 14 SCC 208, the Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of initiating reassessment proceedings in case where the return is processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, observed: “11. What were permissible under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) to be adjusted were, (i) only apparent arithmetical errors in the return, accounts or documents accompanying the return, (ii) loss carried forward, deduction allowance or relief, which was prima facie admissible on the basis of information available in the return but not claimed in the return and similarly (iii) those claims which were on the basis of the information available in the return, prima facie inadmissible, were to be rectified/allowed/disallowed. What was permissible was correction of errors apparent on the basis of the documents accompanying the return. The Assessing Officer had no authority to make adjustments or adjudicate upon any debatable issues. In other words, the Assessing Officer had no power to go behind the return, accounts or documents, (10 of 15) [SAW-1101/2017] either in allowing or in disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. 12. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer to proceed under section 143(2). That right is preserved and is not taken away. Between the period from 1-4-1989 to 31-3-1998, the second proviso to section 143(1)(a), required that where adjustments were made under first proviso to Section 143(1)(a), an intimation had to be sent to the assessee notwithstanding that no tax or refund was due from him after making such adjustments. With effect from 1-4-1998, the second proviso to section 143(1)(a) was substituted by the Finance Act, 1997, which was operative till 1-6-1999. The requirement was that an intimation was to be sent to the assessee whether or not any adjustment had been made under the first proviso to section 143(1) and notwithstanding that no tax or interest was found due from the assessee concerned. Between 1-4- 1998 and 31-5-1999, sending of an intimation under section 143(1)(a) was mandatory. Thus, the legislative intent is very clear from the use of the word “intimation” as substituted for “assessment” that two different concepts emerged. 13. While making an assessment, the Assessing Officer is free to make any addition after grant of opportunity to the assessee. By making adjustments under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a), no addition which is impermissible by the information given in the return could be made by the Assessing Officer. The reason is that under section 143(1) (a) no opportunity is granted to the assessee and the Assessing Officer proceeds on his opinion on the basis of the return filed by the assessee. The very fact that no opportunity of being heard is given under section 143(1)(a) indicates that the Assessing Officer has to proceed accepting the return and making the permissible adjustments only. As a result of insertion of the Explanation to section 143 by the Finance (No.2) Act of 1991 with effect from 1-10-1991, and subsequently with effect from 1-6-1994, by the Finance Act 1994, and ultimately omitted with effect from 1-6-1999, by the Explanation as introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act of 1991 an intimation sent to the assessee under section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be an order for the purposes of section 246 between 1-6-1994, to 31-5-1999, and under section 264 between 1-10-1991 and 31-5-1999. 14. It is to be noticed that the expressions “intimation” and “assessment order” have been used at different places. The contextual difference between the two expressions has to be understood in the context the expressions has to be understood in the context the expressions are used. (11 of 15) [SAW-1101/2017] Assessment is used as meaning sometimes “the computation of income” sometimes “the determination of the amount of tax payable” and sometimes “the whole procedure laid down in the Act for imposing liability under the tax payer”. 15. In the scheme of things, as noted above, the intimation under section 143(1)(a) cannot be treated to be an order of assessment. The distinction is also well brought out by the statutory provisions as they stood at different points of time. Under section 143(1)(a) as it stood prior to 1-4-1989, the Assessing Officer had to pass an assessment order if he decided to accept the return, but under the amended provision, the requirement of passing or an assessment order has been dispensed with and instead an intimation is required to be sent. Various circulars sent by the Central Board of Direct Taxes spell out the intent of the Legislature i.e. to minimize the departmental work to scrutinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D.K. Jain, J) in Apogee International Limited vs. Union of India. 16. It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1) with effect from 1-6- 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under section 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him. It is significant that the acknowledgment is not done by any Assessing Officer but mostly by ministerial staff. Can it be said that any “assessment” is done by them? The reply is an emphatic “no”. The intimation under section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be a notice of demand under section 156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore, there being no assessment under section 143(1)(a) , the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise. ...xxxxx…….xxxxxx 19. Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word “reason” in the phrase “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the fact of legal evidence or conclusion. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude (12 of 15) [SAW-1101/2017] for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. 20. As observed by the Delhi High Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore. Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1991 (191) ITR 662] for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfillment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is “reason to believe”, but not the established fact of escapement of income. At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief. Whether the materials would conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at that stage. This is so because the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer is within the realm of subjective satisfaction (see ITO vs. Selected Dalurband Coal Pvt. Ltd., [1996 (217) ITR 597 SC]; Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (1999 (236) ITR 34 (SC)]. 21. The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from 1-4-1989, as also sections 148 to 152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past assessment years could be assessed or reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied firstly, the Assessing Officer 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 omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all materials facts necessary for his assessment of that year. Both these conditions were conditions precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 read with section 147(a). But under the substituted section 147 existence of only the first condition suffices. In other words if the Assessing Officer for whatever reason has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is however to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147. The case at hand is covered by the main provision and not the proviso.” (emphasis added) 12. In the backdrop of settled position of law as noticed hereinabove, adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be (13 of 15) [SAW-1101/2017] noticed that the return filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2013-14 disclosing the total income at Rs.7,66,540/- was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act whereunder the total income or loss is computed after making the permissible adjustments and the return filed by the assessee is not subjected to scrutiny assessment. As laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Jhaveri Brockers Pvt. Limited’s case (supra), there being no assessment under Section 143 (1), the question of change of opinion does not arise and therefore, the contention sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant that the re-assessment proceedings are initiated by the AO on mere change of opinion is absolutely devoid of any merit. 13. As per Explanation 2(b) to Section 147, where a return of income has been furnished by the assessee but no assessment has been made and it is noticed by the AO that the assessee has understated the income or has claimed the excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return, the same is deemed to be case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 14. In the instant case, a perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act reveals that during the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2014-15 it was noticed that the appellant assessee has received share application money to the tune of Rs. 2.2 crore from 9 entities which was utilised during the year and subsequently returned in Financial Year 2013- 14. That apart, on further examination of certain information received from the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata which had carried the investigation in the case of the 9 entities, details (14 of 15) [SAW-1101/2017] whereof has been set out in the reasons recorded, it was ascertained that those 9 entities are the companies with no real business and are only engaged in business of providing accommodation entries of bogus nature to beneficiary concerns which was further confirmed by the directors/dummy directors/key persons of the said entities in their respective statements. Thus, on the basis of the material on record, AO opined that the appellant company has received and utilised the share application money received from bogus sources lacking genuineness, creditworthiness, genuine identity, which fall within the purview of Section 68 of the Act. 15. In our considered opinion, in the instant case where the return filed by the assessee was not subjected to scrutiny assessment, the belief formed by the AO after due examination of the material on record that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax during the relevant assessment year has escaped assessment cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational or there exists no rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief. 16. It is true that the reasons recorded or the material available on record must have nexus to the subjective opinion formed by the AO regarding the escapement of the income but then, while recording the reasons for belief formed, the AO is not required to finally ascertain the factum of escapement of the tax and it is sufficient that the AO had cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment [vide Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brockers Pvt. Limited’s case (supra)]. It is also well (15 of 15) [SAW-1101/2017] settled the sufficiency and adequacy of the reasons which have led to formation of a belief by the Assessing Officer that the income has escaped the assessment cannot be examined by the court. 17. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference by us in exercise of intra court appeal jurisdiction. 18. In the result, the special appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Aditya/ "