MS USHA MARTIN LIMITED THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT MR NAND KISHOR PATODIA V. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE

WPC/70/2021

AI Insights

M/s Usha Martin Limited approached the High Court seeking to quash a notice and subsequent order related to the reassessment of income for the assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner argued that they had disclosed all necessary details during the original and revised returns, and the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue contended that the reassessment was justified due to undisclosed transactions involving land purchases, which were discovered post-assessment. The court examined the disclosures made by the petitioner and the basis of the reassessment, ultimately dismissing the petition and upholding the reassessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686252 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Companies District I Calcutta and Another [AIR 1961 SC 372, para-10], The Income-Tax Officer, I Ward, District VI, Calcutta and others versus Lakhmani Mewal Das [(1976) 3 SCC 757, para-7], Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Versus Kelvinator of India Limited [(2010) 2 SCC 723, para-6], Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat versus Dhariya Construction Company [(2010) 15 SCC 251, para-2], GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Versus D.C.I.T [(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)], Jeans Knit Versus DCIT [(2018) 12 SCC 36]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMRITA SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: M S MITTAL; SALONA MITTAL
• Keywords: Full and True Disclosure; Income escaping assessment; Limitation Period; Reassessment; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 149

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (T) No. 70 of 2021 --- M/s Usha Martin Limited --- --- Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ranchi --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary Through Video Conferencing --- For the Petitioner: M/s M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, Salona Mittal, Advocate For the Resp.-I.T. Deptt:: Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate --- 03 / 18.01.2021 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that defects have been removed by furnishing typed copy of relevant pages. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.S. Mittal, assisted by Mr. Salona Mittal and Ms. Amrita Sinha for the Respondent Income Tax Department. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of writ of certiorari upon calling for the records of his case and quash the notice dated 19.03.2020 (Annexure- 6) and subsequent order disposing of his objection dated 05.01.2021 (Annexure-12). Petitioner has also prayed for issuance of an order restraining the Respondents from taking any steps towards implementation of notice dated 19.03.2020 (Annexure-9) and the order dated 05.01.2021. Petitioner has further sought issuance of a writ / order / direction upon the Respondents for withdrawal and / or cancellation of the notice dated 19.03.2020 and order dated 05.01.2021 forthwith. 3. Necessary facts relevant for adjudication of the prayer and the issue raised in the writ petition, are as under: Petitioner is a Company engaged in the manufacturing of wire, wire ropes, wire rods, wire drawing and allied machines, steel bars and billets, pig iron, bright bars, house wire, etc. It has its registered office at Kolkata. Original return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 was filed on 29.11.2013 electronically by the petitioner Company. The revised return of income for the same assessment year was filed electronically on 26.03.2015. Notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Act’ in short) was issued upon the petitioner on 25.07.2016 and 10.11.2016 (Annexure-3 series) asking the petitioner to specifically provide the details of the purchase of the property. Petitioner made his written submission on 28.09.2016 and 14.11.2016 (Annexure-4 series) before the Assessing Officer. Petitioner specifically claims to have given all details of the property in question. Assessment order was passed on 05.12.2016 (Annexure-5). Notice under section 148 2 of the Act was issued on 19.03.2020 indicating that the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income chargeable for tax for the A.Y. 2013-14 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Petitioner was asked to deliver a return in the prescribed form for the said assessment year in order to assess / re-assess the income / loss for the said Assessment Year. Petitioner submitted his reply on 02.04.2020 in response to the said notice asking the Assessing Officer to disclose the reasons recorded for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Again, he made a request vide letter dated 05.06.2020 asking for the recorded reasons. By letter dated 14.09.2020 (Annexure-9), reasons recorded under section 148 of the Act was provided by the Assessing Officer. Petitioner objected to the reasons for reopening the assessment by reply dated 10.11.2020 (Annexure-11). By order dated 05.01.2021 (Annexure-12), impugned herein, the objections raised by the petitioner was disposed of. 4. Whether the ingredients of section 147 of the Act are made out for initiation of the proceedings for assessment / re-assessment and issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, is the question to be answered in the writ petition? Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Act of 1961 are quoted hereunder for better appreciation: “147. Income escaping assessment- If the Assessing Officer (has reason to believe) that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for any assessment year: Provided also that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matter of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment. Explanation 1.—Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could, with due diligence, have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso. 3 Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, namely:— (a) where no return of income has been furnished by the assessee although his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax ; (b) where a return of income has been furnished by the assessee but no assessment has been made and it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has understated the income or has claimed excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return; (ba) where the assessee has failed to furnish a report in respect of any international transaction which he was so required under section 92E; (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148. Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012. 148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment- (1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, [***] as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139 : Provided that in a case— (a) where a return has been furnished during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on the 30th day of September, 2005 in response to a notice served under this section, and (b) subsequently a notice has been served under sub-section (2) of section 143 after the expiry of twelve months specified in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 143, as it stood immediately before the amendment of said sub-section by the Finance Act, 2002 (20 of 2002) but before the expiry of the time limit for making the assessment, re-assessment or recomputation as specified in sub- section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice: Provided further that in a case— 4 (a) where a return has been furnished during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on the 30th day of September, 2005, in response to a notice served under this section, and (b) subsequently a notice has been served under clause (ii) of sub- section (2) of section 143 after the expiry of twelve months specified in the proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143, but before the expiry of the time limit for making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation as specified in sub- section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in the first proviso or the second proviso shall apply to any return which has been furnished on or after the 1st day of October, 2005 in response to a notice served under this section. (2) The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so. 149. Time limit for notice-(1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c); (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year; (c) if four years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment. Explanation.—In determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the purposes of this sub-section, the provisions of Explanation 2 of section 147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made on him as the agent of such non-resident, the notice shall not be issued after the expiry of a period of (six years) from the end of the relevant assessment year. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.” 5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the pleadings on record in the writ petition to substantiate his contention that the assessee had not only made full and true disclosure of his income by filing his return for the A.Y. 2013-14 and revised return for the A.Y. 2013-14 within time, but had also responded to the notice under section 142(1) dated 25.07.2016 and 10.11.2016. In particular reference to Item No. 29 of the Questionnaire, he had stated in his submission dated 28.09.2016 that the Company had sold no property during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to the A.Y. 2013-14. Petitioner submitted the details of the purchase of property by the Company enclosed as Annexure-4 to his written submission dated 28.09.2016 5 (Annexure-4 series). Assessment order was passed on 05.12.2016. He further submits that the last date for filing of return for the F.Y. 2013-14 was 31.03.2014. As per section 147 of the Act, limitation period for assessment / re-assessment is four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 19.03.2020 beyond the limitation of four years. Petitioner requested the Assessing Officer to disclose the reasons by the communication dated 02.04.2020 and also pointed out the limitation of four years in initiation of proceedings under section 147. He also submitted another communication on 05.06.2020 to the same effect. The Assessing Officer by reply dated 14.09.2020, disclosed the recorded reasons (Annexure-9). It is submitted that perusal of the reply and the recorded reasons indicates that the Assessing Officer after examination of the assessment record and the annual return for the year 2012-13 of the assessee noticed that an expenditure of Rs. 11.65 crore was incurred for the purchase of freehold land in the year. However, on cross verification from the report of the District Registrar, Seraikella-Kharsawan, it was found that the assessee had actually purchased the land at Rs. 30.04 crores from 11 different persons on 26.02.2013, as per the table furnished therein. This indicated that the assessee had incurred Rs. 18.39 crores more than the declared expenditure on lands. These were unexplained expenditure to the tune of Rs. 18.39 crores which was liable to be added back to the assessee’s total income. 6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner by his reply dated 10.11.2020 submitted his objection to the recording of reasons. The objections have been disposed of by the impugned order dated 05.01.2021. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there has been no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts fully and truly required for assessment. As such, proviso to section 147 of the Act has not been violated. In this regard, it is submitted that the primary facts were disclosed to the assessing authority upon notice dated 25.07.2016 and 10.11.2016 vide Annexure-4 series dated 28.09.2016. Petitioner has relied upon the decisions in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Companies District I Calcutta and Another [AIR 1961 SC 372, para-10] and The Income-Tax Officer, I Ward, District VI, Calcutta and others versus Lakhmani Mewal Das [(1976) 3 SCC 757, para-7] in support of the contention, that once all the primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure. It is for the Assessing Officer to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is not for somebody else, far less the assesse, to tell the assessing authority what inferences whether of facts or law should be drawn. Once the assessee has made true and full disclosure of the primary facts, his duty 6 ends. It is not the responsibility of the assessee to advise 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. 7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that re-assessment proceeding cannot be initiated on the basis of change in opinion by the Assessing Officer. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Versus Kelvinator of India Limited [(2010) 2 SCC 723, para-6]. It is submitted that there is conceptual difference between the power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain precondition and if the concept of “change of opinion” is removed, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place, which is impermissible. It is further argued that the report of the District Registrar, Seraikella- Kharsawan cannot be the basis of initiation of reassessment without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat versus Dhariya Construction Company [(2010) 15 SCC 251, para-2]. He submits that opinion of the District Valuation Officer, per se, is not information for the purposes of reopening assessment under section 147 of the Act. The A.O. has to apply his mind to the information, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon. Based on this submission, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been no failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose the income during the assessment proceedings. Moreover, notice dated 19.03.2020 issued under section 148 being beyond a period of four years, is impermissible in view of first proviso to section 147 of the Act. If initiation of the proceedings is not in accordance with law, the entire reassessment proceedings based upon that, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In such a case, writ petition is wholly maintainable. In support of such submission, he has placed reliance upon [(2018) 12 SCC 36, Jeans Knit Versus DCIT]. 8. Learned counsel for the Revenue Ms. Amrita Sinha has, in reply, submitted that the petitioner failed to truly and fully disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment while filing his return and revised return and also despite notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 25.07.2016 and 10.11.2016. Learned counsel for the Revenue has taken us to Annexure-4 to the reply dated 28.09.2016 at page- 106 which, according to the petitioner, contains the details of the purchase of property by the Company in Seraikella-Kharsawan. Along with this table, she has 7 placed the reply dated 14.09.2020 (Annexure-9) given by the Assessing Officer at page-178 i.e. the chart which contains the name of persons from whom lands were purchased by the petitioner in the district of Seraikella-Kharawan during the F.Y. 2012-13. Learned counsel Ms. Sinha submits that the Assessing Officer on cross verification from the report of the District Registrar, Seraikella-Kharsawan, found that the Company had actually purchased land of Rs. 30.04 crores from 11 different persons given in the table thereunder on 26.02.2013. She fairly submits that the relevant letter dated 14.09.2020 enclosed at Annexure-9 page-178 onwards by the petitioner however contains the name of eight persons, whereas the total number of such persons from whom petitioner had purchased lands is 11. She has in particular referred to the names of Manaranjan Beg, Mansaram Bej, Lalu Beg, Bikram Veg and Champa Devi from whom, the petitioner had purchased lands on 26.02.2013 within the F.Y. 2012-13. However, the details of the name of the vendors and the lands purchased by the petitioner, as furnished at page-108 to his reply dated 28.09.2016, did not disclose that the lands were purchased from these persons also. The Assessing Officer on prima facie examination of the balance sheet ending 31.03.2013 observed that the petitioner Company had incurred Rs. 18.39 crores, more than the declared expenses on land in such fashion. Therefore, it appeared that unexplained investment to the tune of Rs. 18.39 crore (Rs. 18,39,42,054/-) had escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2013-14. Such escapement was on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. It was not a case where A.O. has re- examined the materials and documents already on record filed by the assesse along with the return or subsequently brought on record during the assessment proceedings. By referring to the contents of the reply dated 14.09.2020, she further submits that such information did not form part of the original assessment proceedings and was placed before the Assessing Officer only after the assessment was completed. Based upon such material information received from the District Registrar, Seraikella- Kharsawan, notice under section 148 for reopening of assessment has been issued. Therefore, from the materials founds, there was a reason to believe that income of the assesse had escaped assessment and therefore, it was justified to reopen the assessment. Learned counsel submits that at the stage of initiation of the proceedings under section 148, the only question is whether, there was relevant material information to form a reasonable belief? Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner was repelled. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that in those circumstances, the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing notices under section 148 to reopen the assessment. The notice was issued after taking prior approval from Principal, CIT, Central, Patna, as per the procedure laid down in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Versus D.C.I.T [(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). She has referred 8 to the ingredients of the first proviso to Section 147 and countered the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that such a proceedings under section 148 for reassessment of escaped income was barred by limitation since the petitioner had failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment for that financial year. She has also referred to section 149(1) (b) which prescribes that notice under section 148 can be issued for the relevant assessment year not more than six years thereafter, if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year. It is submitted that in the facts of the present case, the income which has escaped assessment is definitely more than Rs. 1.00 lakh. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the reliance of the petitioner on the decisions, cited above, shall not come to his aid. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on the glaring facts of the present case. Petitioner had failed to disclose the primary facts before the assessing authority, whereupon the assessing authority could have drawn an inference. The ratio in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd (Supra) and Lakhmani Mewal Das (Supra) therefore does not apply to the petitioners’ case. It is submitted that initiation of the reassessment proceeding is not based on change in opinion by the Assessing Officer because these materials were not brought on record by the assessee by making true and full disclosure of material facts necessary for his assessment of that assessment year, as per first proviso to section 147. Therefore, reliance upon the case of Kelvinator of India Limited (Supra) is also misplaced. She submits that it is not the report of the District Valuation Officer which is the basis for formation of the reasons to initiate proceedings under section 148 against the petitioner, but the report of the District Registrar, Seraikella-Kharsawan regarding purchase of the lands in the A.Y. 2012-13 beyond what was disclosed by the assessee by filing his return or revised return or submitting his written submission in response to the notice under section 142(1) vide letters dated 25.07.2016 and 10.11.2016. Therefore, the ratio of the decision in the case of Dhariya Construction Company (Supra), relied upon by the petitioner, is also misplaced. Learned counsel for the Revenue further submits, as per her instruction that the assesse has not appeared on 15.12.2020 before the Assessing Officer despite notices. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that from the entire facts and circumstances of the case revealed from the records of the writ petition itself, it is clear that on none of the two counts, initiation of the proceedings for reassessment under section 148 is vitiated on facts and in law. Writ petition being devoid of merit, is fit to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the Revenue has placed reliance in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. versus Income Tax Officer and others [(2003) 1 SCC 9 72]. She submits that if reasons have been disclosed to the petitioner on his objection, he is required to file his return and participate in the reassessment proceedings. Interference at this stage is not made out and wholly uncalled for. 10. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made a request for adjournment before the Assessing Officer on 15.01.2021. 11. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties on the basis of the relevant material pleadings / documents on record. The short question which has been posed for answer in the instant writ petition rests on few relevant material facts which are borne out from the records. Petitioner has rested his case on two fold submissions: (i) That he has truly and fully disclosed all materials necessary for assessment for the A.Y. 2013-14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the original return, revised return and reply / written submission submitted by him on 25.07.2016 and 10.11.2016 in response to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. On specific query being made during course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has, in particular, referred to the details of the purchase of lands from different persons furnished at Annexure-4 at page 108 to the reply dated 10.11.2016. Petitioner had thus made true and full disclosure of all material facts i.e. the primary facts before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. If in the assessment order dated 05.12.2016, the Assessing Officer did not find any instance of income having escaped assessment, merely by relying upon the report of the District Registrar, Seraikella-Kharsawan without any independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer, assessment proceedings could not have been reopened under section 148 of the Act. (ii) It is the categorical case of the petitioner that reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Act are barred by limitation. It is stated that the notice dated 19.03.2020 is beyond the period of four years prescribed under section 147 of the Act. 12. However, on careful and minute scrutiny of the material facts on record, in particular, the statement of investment in the land / purchase of lands made in the F.Y. 2013-14 at page-108 (Part of Annexure-4 series) of written submission dated 10.12.2016 and the table furnished by the Assessing Officer in his reply dated 14.09.2020 (Annexure-9) containing the recorded reasons in terms of section 147, it is clear that the assessee had not made full disclosure of the purchase of lands made in the year 2012-13. In particular, he has failed to disclose that on 26.02.2013 he had purchased lands in the district of Seraikella-Kharsawan from certain persons named therein, as also pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue. After the assessment was over, on cross verification from the report of the District Registrar, 10 Seraikella-Kharsawan, it was revealed that the Company had actually purchased lands of Rs. 30.04 crores from 11 different persons on 26.02.2013. The balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2013 revealed that the Company had incurred Rs. 18.39 crores more than the declared expenses on land which appear to have escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2013-14. This fact was discovered by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the report of District Registrar, Seraikella-Kharsawan after the assessment was complete and not on re-examining the materials and documents already on record filed by the assessee along with the return or subsequently brought on record during the assessment proceedings. This is the basis on which the Assessing Officer formed a reasonable belief that the assessee had failed to truly and fully disclose his income. As such, this income of the assessee had escaped assessment. Thus, the ingredients of first proviso to section 147 appear to be made out on the basis of materials on records. If that is so, the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 148 beyond the limitation of four years, as prescribed under the first proviso to section 147 and also under section 149(1) (b) is not in breach of the statutory provisions. 13. Petitioner has placed reliance upon the cases of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. and Lakhmani Mewal Das (Supra), para-10 and 7 respectively on the proposition that once true and full disclosure of the all the material facts has been made by the petitioner, it was for the Assessing Officer to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences could ultimately be reasonably drawn therefrom. However, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in these decisions would not come to the help of the petitioner since on the face of the record, as noticed herein-above, petitioner had failed to make true and full disclosure of the relevant material facts necessary for his assessment for the A.Y. 2013-14 at the time of filing of return or even revised return or in reply to the notice under section 142 (1) of the Act vide his replies dated 25.07.2016 and 10.11.2016. For the same reasons, it cannot be said that initiation of reassessment proceedings is based upon mere change in the opinion by the Assessing Officer and not on the basis of relevant material facts having come to his notice to form a reasonable belief after close of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, reliance upon the decision in the case of Kelvinator of India Limited (Supra), by the petitioner, is also misplaced. As it appears from the materials on record, it is not the report of the District Valuation Officer which has formed the basis of initiation of reassessment proceedings as in the case of Dhariya Construction Company (Supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. As a matter of fact, it is the report of the District Registrar, Seraikella-Kharsawan revealing purchase of lands to the tune of Rs. 30.04 crores on 26.02.2013 i.e. Rs. 18.39 crores more than the declared expenses on land, as per the 11 balance sheet furnished by the petitioner for the year ending 31.03.2013 during the assessment proceedings, that have formed the basis for forming a reasonable belief that this income has escaped assessment for the relevant A.Y. 2013-14. As such, decision in the case of Dhariya Construction Company (Supra), is also of no aid to the petitioner. 14. In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above and for the reasons recorded, we do not find any error in the initiation of the proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1861 by the Assessing Officer. Petitioner has failed to make out any ground for interference on facts or in law in the impugned notice dated 19.03.2020 or the order dated 05.01.2021 disposing of his objections. As such, writ petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Ranjeet/ "