RAJESH JAYANTILAL PATEL THRU. POA TO JAYANTILAL HARILAL BARDANA V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(2)

SCA/17787/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Rajesh Jayantilal Patel, who challenged a notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the reassessment of his income for the assessment year 2011-12. The notice was based on information obtained during a survey at Rekvina Laboratories, which revealed undisclosed cash transactions involving Patel. The court examined the validity of the reopening of the assessment and the sufficiency of the reasons provided by the Assessing Officer. The court concluded that the reopening was justified due to the tangible material indicating that income had escaped assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 761905 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors. vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Ors. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors., Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KALPANA RAVAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DARSHAN PATEL
• Keywords: Income Tax; Non-disclosure of income; Notice under section 148; Reassessment; Search and seizure
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 132; 153A; 133A; 151

Judgement Text

"C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17787 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Sd/- and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Sd/- ========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? No ========================================================== RAJESH JAYANTILAL PATEL THRU. POA TO JAYANTILAL HARILAL BARDANA Versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(2) ========================================================== Appearance: DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 22/03/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) Page 1 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs; “(A) Issue a writ of certiorari and/or a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ direction or order to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 27.03.2018 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act6, 1961 annexed hereto at Annexure-E along with preliminary order dated 8.10.2018 annexed hereto at Annexure-’I’ for proceeding and completing reassessment proceedings. (B) Pending admission, hearing and disposal of this petition, ad-interim relief be granted and the Respondent be ordered to restrain from enforcing compliance of the impugned notice dated 27.03.2018 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 annexed hereto at Annexure-’E” and/or taking any other steps in this regard including ex-parte order or implementation of preliminary order dated 8.10.2018 at Annexure-’I’ and further notices issued for purpose of reassessment. (C ) Award the cost of this petition. (D) Grant such other and further relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit.” 2. The subject matter of challenge is the legality and validity of the notice issued by the respondent dated 27.03.2018 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) for the A.Y.2011-12. The reasons assigned by the respondent for reopening are as under; Page 2 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 “1. The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of real estate development. A search action u/s.132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 30.05.2012. Thereafter, the assessee filedreturn of income on 09.10.2014 showing total income Rs.26,88,450/-. Further, assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act was passed on 20.03.2015 assessing total income at Rs.26,88,450/-. 2. Now as per the information received from JtDIT (OSD), Central, Circle-2, Baroda vide his letter No.BRD/CIT.CC-2(OSD)/Akshar/2017-18/253 date 29.01.2018, during the search assessment proceedings in the Akshar Groups cases assessed with that central circle for AY 2010-11 to A.Y.2016- 17, it has been noticed that during the survey proceedings from 22.09.2015 to 24.09.2015 at the business premise of the M/s.Rekving Laboratories at 328-329, Paradise Complex, Sayajiganj, Vadodara various loose papers/register/diaries/backup of computer/digital devices etc was taken and impounded as per annexure BF of impounding order dated 24.09.2015 and in that Annexure-BF-1 contained certain pages relating to particulars Land at Survey No.391/2 & 392 (at Gotri, Vadodara. The following seized/impounded documents pertains the assessee Shri Rajesh Jayantilal Patel (PAN:AACPF0489L) Page No. Content Page No.37, 38, 39, 61, 64, 71, 73, 74 and 88 of Annexure-BF- 1 IMPOUNDED from the premise of having M/s.Rekvina Laboratories at 328-329, Paradise Complex, Sayajiaganj, Vadodara. These pages contain of transactions in respect of a particular land located at Survey No.391/1 and 392, Gotri, Vadodara. 3. On perusal of the inquiry report, it is noticed that as per agreement regd. No.0365 date 05/05/2010 (which found & impounded as per Annexure-BF-1 dated 23.09.2015 during the search Page 3 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 action at the residential premise of Shri Mukesh Shah at 36, Samptro Colony, Alkapuri, Vadodara from 22.09.2015 to 23,09.2015 between Shri Amit Mukesh Shah, Surbhit Mukesh Shah and Rajesh Jayantilal Patel to sell the land. It is clearly mentioned at para-3 of the agreement that Rs.1.25 crore cash has been paid by Shri Rajesh Jayantilal Patel, Prop. M/s. Bhoomi Developers, Dr. Yagnik Road, Rajkot to Amit Mukeshbhai Shah & Surbhit Mukeshbhai Shah, Scanned copy of the agreement is reproduced as under; On verification, it is noticed that impounded pages contain the details of both cash and cheque. It is clearly observed from the impounded pages, impounded agreement, consensus agreement and Dastavej that the cheque entries clearly match. Therefore, as per agreement between Rajesh Jayantilal Patel and Shri Amit Mukesh Shah & Surbhit Mukesh Shah, it is clear that there was cash deal of Rs.1.25 crores between them. The assessee Shri Rajesh Jayantilal Patel has paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 25.08.2009 (F.Y.2009-10), Rs.10,00,000/- on 07.12.2009 (F.Y.2009-10) and Rs.50,00,000/- on 14.04.2010 (F.Y. 2010-11) and Rs.64,00,000/- on 05.05.2010 (F.Y.2010-11). Thus the assessee has paid total cash of Rs.1,14,00,000/- during the F.Y.2010-11 to Amit Mukeshbhai Shah and Surbhit Mukeshbhai Shah. However, on verification of the balance sheet and P&L Account submitted by the assessee for A.Y.2011-12 during the assessment proceedings, it is noticed that the assessee has not shown these transactions in his books of accounts. Thus, it is clear that the assessee has made huge payment of Cash of Rs.1,14,00,000/- to Shri Amit Mukesh Shah, Surbhit Mukesh Shah during the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2011-12 form out of books, therefore the source of the same remains unexplained. 4. Further, on perusal of the inquiry report, as per Agreement between Rajesh Jayantilal Patel and Shri Page 4 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 Amit Mukesh Shah & Surbhit Mukesh Shah it is clear that there was cash deal of Rs.1.25 crores between them. However, the land was not sold to Shri Rajesh Jayantilal Patel. The final Dastavej was made by Shri Amit Mukesh Shah and Surbhit Mukesh Shah vide registered deed No.16796/2010 on 31.12.2010 for Rs.6,50,00,000/- in the name of Dharmesh Ramesh Gathani-HUF, Parag Ramesh Gathani-HUF, Rameshbhai Himmatlal Gathani-HUF and Shri Gautam Kantilal Choksi-HUF. Also Shri Rajesh Jayantilal Patel knew the value of the land i.e., approx 22 crores which was also mentioned in their agreement. Shri Rajesh Jayantilal Patel has objected to the transfer of the land before the sub-registrar. Shri Rajesh Jayantilal patel also went into litigation in the Vadodara Court and as per terms passed by the Court he was compensated by the final purchase of land and he was given Rs.5,55,00,000/- crores for leaving the claim on the land by the final purchasers (Gathani and Choksi). In lieu of the same he gave the NOC in 2012 to the transfer the land and taken back his objection. Further, on perusal of information, it is noticed that the terms of payment of the consensus/ a decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the Dastavej and the impounded papers are clearly matched. The cheque entry are clearly matching with what the sellers of land and confirming parties. Impounded pages contain the details of both cash and cheque. It is observed from the impounded impounded agreement, consensus agreement and Dastavej that the cheque entries clearly match. For better clarity comparison of Para 4(I) of Consensus agreement between the parties and the impounded page no.71 of Annexure-BF-1 impounded during survey at the premises of M/s. Rekvina Pharmaceuticals are reproduced herewith. Thus, it is clear that the assessee was given his shares in this land which was mentioned in the impounded pages, both cash of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and Page 5 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 Rs.5,55,00,000/- by cheque. From the impounded material it is clear that the assessee has received total cash of Rs.1,50,00,000/- during the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2011-12. However, no verification of the balance sheet submitted by the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12, the assessee has not shown these transactions in his books of accounts. Thus it is clear that the assessee has received huge cash of Rs.1,50,00,000/- during the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2011-12 which is required to be taken under tax net during the year under consideration. 6. In view of the above facts and seized material available on the records, it is clear that the assessee has grossly failed to disclose the above mentioned transaction in his return of income and source of such cash payment of Rs.1,14,00,000/- to Amit Mukesh Shah and Surbhit Mukesh Shah also not disclosed the profit receipt of Rs.1,50,00,000/- received in cash during the year under consideration. I have therefore reason to believe that income of Rs.2,64,00,000/- (Rs.1,14,00,000/-) has escaped assessment in this case for which the case of the assessee for A.Y.2011-12 needs to be reopened within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act. It is therefore requested that necessary approval may kindly be accorded for issuing notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act in this case. 7. In this case, a return of income was filed for the year under consideration and regular assessment u/ s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A was made on 20.03.2015. Since, 4 years from the end of the relevant year has expired in this case, the requirements to initiate proceedings u/s.147 of the Act are reason to believe that income for the year under consideration has escaped assessment because of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the assessment year under consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that reason to believe that income has escaped Page 6 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 assessment for the year under consideration have been recorded above para No.2 to 6. I have carefully considered the assessment records containing the submission made by the assessee in response to various notices issued during the assessment proceeding and have noted that the assessee has not fully and truly disclosed the following material for its assessment for the year under consideration. The assessee has grossly failed to disclose the above mentioned transactions in his return of income and source of such cash payment of Rs.1,14,00,000/- to Amit Shah and Surbhit Shah also not disclosed the profit/receipt of Rs.1,50,00,000/- received in cash during the year under consideration. It is evident from the above facts that the assessee had truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s.147 of the Act. It is true that the assesee has filed a copy of annual report and audited P&L A/c. and balance sheet along with return of income where various information/material were disclosed. However, the requisite full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment has not been made as noted above. It is pertinent to mention here that even though the assessee has produced books of accounts, annual report, audited P&L A/c and balance sheet or other evidence as mentioned above, the requisite material facts as noted above in the reasons for reopening were embedded in such a manner that material evidence could not be discovered by the AO and could have been discovered with due diligence, accordingly provision of explanation 1 of Section 147 of the Act. It is important to highlight here that material facts relevant for the assessment on the issue under consideration were not filed during the course of assessment proceedings and the same may be Page 7 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 embedded in annual report, audited P&L A/c balance sheet and books of account in such a manner that if would require due diligence by the AO to extract these information. For afore-stated reason, it is not a case of change of opinion by the AO. In this case, more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s.148 has been obtained separately from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot as per the provision of section 151 of the Act.” 3. To the aforesaid, the writ applicant lodged its objections which is at page-94, Annexure-H to the paper- book. The aforesaid objections came to be disposed of by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 08.10.2018. 4. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the writ applicant is here before this Court with the present writ application. 5. We have heard Mr. R.K. Patel, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Darshan R. Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the writ applicant and Ms. Kalpana Raval, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue. 6. It appears from the materials on record that a search was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 30.05.2012 and notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 11.08.2014 which proceedings culminated in an order Page 8 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 under section 143(3) of the Act read with Section 153A of the Act. Such order was dated 20.03.2015. 7. Between 22.09.2015 and 24.09.2015 a survey proceedings under Section 153A of the Act was conducted on one Rekvina Laboratories during which the information relating to two parcels of land surfaced which was not previously revealed by the assesee and which related to the assessee. The said information was forwarded on 29.01.2018 to the respondent and notice under Section 148 was issued on 27.03.2018. The reasons as assigned and noted above would reveal that there was payment of Rs.1.14 crore in receipt of Rs.1.50 Crore which was not revealed by the assessee. Based on the same, the order has been passed dated 08.10.2018 rejecting the objections raised by the writ applicant. 8. It is difficult for us to say that the reopening is not based on any tangible information. The information came in the hands of the respondent during the survey proceedings under Section 133A of the Act. The case on hand cannot be said to be one of any fishing or roving inquiry or change of opinion. 9. Mr. Patel also argued that the impugned notice of reopening deserves to be quashed also in view of the Instruction No.1/2011 issued by the board, which reads thus; Page 9 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 “Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961-Income Tax Authorities-Instructions to Subordinate Authorities. Instruction No.1/2011 [F.No.187/12/2010-IT(A-1)], Dated 31.01.2011. References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and Dcs/Acs/ is causing hardship to the taxpayers, as it results in transfer of their cases to a DC/AC who is located in a different station, which increases their cost of compliance. The Board had considered the matter and is of the opinion that the existing limits need to be revised to remove the above mentioned hardship; An increase in the monetary limit is also considered desirable in view of the increase in the scale of trade and industry since 2001, when the present income limits were introduced. It has therefore been decided to increase the monetary limits as under; Income declared (Mofussil areas) Income declared (Metro cities) ITOs Acs/ Dcs ITOs DCs/ ACs Corporate returns Upto Rs.20 Lacs Above Rs.20 Lacs Upto Rs.30 Lacs Above Rs.30 Lacs Non- corporate returns Upto Rs.15 Lacs Above Rs.15 Lacs Upto Rs.20 Lacs Above Rs.20 Lacs Metro charges for the purpose of above instructions shall be Ahmedabad, Banglore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkatta, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. The above instructions are issued in supersession of the earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from 1.4.2011.” Page 10 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 10. Mr. R.K. Patel, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ applicant submitted that the Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011 issued by the board as referred to above mandated that the case of the writ applicant be taken up only by an officer not belong the rank of a Deputy Commissioner. It is the case of Mr. Patel that the instructions issued by the board are binding upon the department and would not permit the Assessing Officer to issue notice under Section 148 since the same would run contrary to such instructions. Mr. Patel, therefore, submits that apart from such other grounds as raised by him, only on this short ground, the notice of reopening deserves to be quashed. 11. Section 147 of the Act authorizes the re-opening of any assessment of a previous year. Section 148, which contains the conditions for re-opening assessments, including the limitation period within which notices can be issued, by its proviso, enacts that: “Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice.” 12. Almost six decades back, the Supreme Court, in its decision in the case of Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 1961 (2) SCR 241 had underscored the obligation of every assessee to Page 11 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 make a true and full disclosure and said that: “There can be no doubt that the duty of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assesses.” 13. The Supreme Court further held that once the duty is discharged, it is upto the assessing officer to inquire further and draw the necessary inferences while completing the assessment. 14. As to what can be the valid grounds for re-opening an assessment has been the subject matter of several decisions of the supreme court. In Income Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors. vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, 1976 (3) SCR 956, the Supreme Court held that the “reasons to believe” must be based on objective materials, and on a reasonable view. The court held as follows: “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 grounds which induce the income-tax Officer to act is, therefore, not a justiciable issue. It is, of course, open to the assessee 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 Page 12 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 be challenged by the assessee but not the sufficiency of 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 pretence. 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.” 15. In Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Ors. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors., 1993 Supp (1) SCR 28, after reviewing the previous case law, and concluding that a valid re-opening is one, preceded by specific, reliable and relevant information, and that the sufficiency of such reasons is not subject to judicial review- the only caveat being that the court can examine the record, if such material existed, it was held that the facts disclosed in the return, if found later to be unfounded or false, can always be the basis of a re-opening of assessment: “appears to us to be, to ensure that a party cannot get away by willfully making a false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn around and say \"you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing\". It would be travesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude.” 16. A three judge Bench, of the Supreme Court, in the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of Page 13 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 India Ltd., 2010 (1) SCR 768, after considering its previous decisions, re-stated the position of law as follows: “5....where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to re-open is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words \"reason to believe\"..… Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of \"mere change of opinion\", which cannot be per se reason to re-open. 6. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re- assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess. But re- assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of \"change of opinion\" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. 7. One must treat the concept of \"change of opinion\" as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is \"tangible material\" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.” 17. It is therefore, clear that the basis for a valid re- opening of assessment should be the availability of tangible material, which can lead the AO to scrutinize the returns for the previous assessment year in question, to determine, whether a notice under Section 147 is called Page 14 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 for. 18. The decision to reopen is based on tangible information, which was not in the possession of the officer at the time of carrying out the assessment proceedings. The said information was revealed during the survey proceedings under Section 133A of the Act and therefore the reopening under Section 148 would be the proper course of action since proceedings under Section 153C would be the result of search proceedings under Section 132A and not survey proceedings under Section 133A. Furthermore, the reliance placed on the Instruction No.1 public 2011 dated 31.01.2011 is also misplaced since the same is with respect to the assessment proceedings and not proceedings initiated pursuant to Section 148 of the Act. Reading such instructions to override the effect of section 148 read with section 151 of the Act would be contrary to the intent. Furthermore, the Madras High Court in the case of C. Krishnan, 2014 (52) Taxmann.com 30 was pleased to hold that such instructions are not in the nature of circulars or notifications and hence not mandatory. 19. All the aforesaid facts were not before the Assessing Officer at the time of finalization of the search assessment. It is a settled position of law that the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Assessing Officer fall outside the review powers and remains within the domain of the Assessing Officer at this stage of the Page 15 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 proceedings where only a preliminary finding under section 147/148 has been made. It is necessary to reiterate that we are at the stage of the validity of the notice under section 148/147. The inquiry at this stage is only to see whether there are reasonable grounds for the Income Tax Officer to believe and not whether the omission/failure and the escapement of income is established. It is necessary to keep this distinction in mind. (See Shri Krishna (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (1996) 221 ITR 538/87 Taxman 315). 20. Having regard to the materials on record it cannot be said that there is a total non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. It also cannot be said that his conclusion was merely based on the observations and information received from the Investigation Wing. The Assessing Officer could be said to have applied his mind to the same. The Assessing Officer could not be said to have merely concluded without verifying the facts that it is the case of reopening of the assessment. We do not find merit in the vociferous submission of the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant that the contents of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for the reopening of the assessment is merely an introduction about the investigations conducted by the Investigation Wing, the modus operandi of the entry provided, the summing up of inquiry of the Investigation Wing, the information received from the Investigation Wing etc. We Page 16 of 17 C/SCA/17787/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/03/2022 have examined the belief of the Assessing Officer to a limited extent to look into whether there was sufficient material available on record for the Assessing Officer to form a reasonable belief and whether there was a live link existing of the material and the income chargeable to tax that escaped assessment. The case on hand is not one where it could be argued that the Assessing Officer, on absolutely vague or unspecific information, initiated the proceedings of reassessment without taking the pains to form his own belief in respect of such materials. 21. In the result, this application fails and is hereby rejected. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) Vahid Page 17 of 17 "