VISHNU AGARWAL SON OF SHRI RAM BHAGAT AGARWAL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CW/23500/2018

AI Insights

Vishnu Agarwal, a businessman involved in trading oil and ghee, challenged the reassessment notice issued by the Income Tax Officer for the assessment year 2011-12, alleging that the income had escaped assessment. The reassessment was based on the belief that Agarwal was the actual beneficiary of a bank account linked to another individual, Munna Lal Pareek, and that significant funds had escaped tax assessment. The court examined whether the reassessment was justified under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, focusing on the 'reasons to believe' standard and the procedural correctness of the reassessment process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 762417 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jeans Knit P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Smt. Kiran Kanwar Vs. UOI, Cheer Sagar Vs. CIT, Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Krown Agro Food (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Hemant Traders Vs. ITO, CIT Vs. Indo Arab Air Services, Hari Kishan Sunderlal Virmani Vs. DCIT, Varshaben Sanatbai Patel Vs. ITO, PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd., PCIT Vs. Shodiman Investment Pvt. Ltd., Sun Direct TV Pvt. Ltd Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-(20)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDHARTH RANKA
• Keywords: Cryptic order; Escaped assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Reasons to believe; Reassessment notice
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writs No. 23500/2018 Vishnu Agarwal Son Of Shri Ram Bhagat Agarwal, Aged About 50 Years, Having Its Address At Flat No. 301, Monark Residency, D- 227A, Tulsi Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (2), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sidharth Ranka Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order Reportable 26/10/2018 The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned reassessment notice dt. 29th March, 2018 and the notice/order dt. 13th September, 2018, passed by the respondents deciding the objections in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner is carrying out the business of trading in Oil and Ghee and is regularly getting his books of accounts audited and thereafter filing its Income Tax return from year to year. Petitioner has pleaded that for the financial year 2010-11 i.e., the Assessment Year 2011-12, the petitioner got his books of accounts audited, filed his Income Tax return on 30th September, 2011, declaring the total income of Rs. 2,75,121/- and accordingly Income Tax was paid by the petitioner. (2 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] 3. The petitioner has pleaded that a notice dt. 29th March, 2018, was issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961for the assessment year 2011-12 and it was proposed to assess/reassess the income for the assessment year 2011-12 as respondent carried a belief that income for said assessment years has escaped assessment. It is pleaded that in compliance of the impugned notice, the petitioner submitted before the authorities, that returns were filed earlier on 30th September, 2011, and the tax was paid. 4. The petitioner has pleaded that without providing the reasons for reassessment proceedings, the respondents issued notices under Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also issued notice under Section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dt. 10th August, 2018, whereby certain queries were raised. The petitioner has pleaded that a request was made after receipt of notice dt. 29th March, 2018, to provide the reasons recorded for initiation of reassessment proceedings. The petitioner has pleaded that request was again made by letter dt. 21st August, 2018, to provide copy of reasons for reassessment, as mandated by law. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that on 21st August, 2010, the respondents provided the reasons recorded for initiation of reassessment proceedings and it emerged that the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act, were initiated on the basis of order passed by CIT(A) in the case of one Shri Munna Lal Pareek, wherein it was held that petitioner was the actual beneficiary- owner of the Bank A/c No. 1790101442770 and name of Munna Lal Pareek was used by the petitioner and amount of Rs. 43,81,500/- escaped from assessment for tax purpose. (3 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] 6. The petitioner has pleaded that on receipt of reasons recorded for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, a request was made to provide material available with the reference to Munna Lal Pareek and the respondents provided the copy of assessment order and appellate order passed in the case of Munna Lal Pareek by letter dt. 24th August, 2018. 7. The petitioner has further pleaded that in response to the notice received by him under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he filed objections on 11th September, 2018 and as many as 13 objections were raised. 8. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents by the impugned speaking order dt. 13th September, 2018, has decided the objections in a cryptic manner and completely failed to appreciate and consider the objections raised by the petitioner in proper perspective and has rejected the objections with pre- conceived notions. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mr. Sidharth Ranka, has submitted that the order of disposal of objections by impugned order is passed in gross abuse of exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power, and the same is illegal, arbitrary, based on surmises, without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, invalid, inoperative, vague, ineffective in law, without authority and competence, void-ab-initio, completely baseless, based on wrong reading of law and is a nullity in the eyes of law. 10. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be re-opened only on the basis of the “reasons to believe” and not only on the mere basis of the “reasons to suspect”. Counsel submitted that Section 148 of the Act, 1961, casts a duty on the (4 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] Assessing Officer to first have the definite material and information and to form an opinion, as whether some income has escaped assessment. 11. Counsel submitted that the information which is gathered by the Assessing Officer in respect of assessment made in the hands of different assessee, cannot itself lead to a situation where the Assessing Officer has to make up his mind for his reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. 12. Counsel further submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondents has not taken into account the various guidelines laid down by the Apex Court as well as by different High Courts. 13. This Court asked the learned counsel to satisfy about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the orders passed by the Income Tax Authority, deciding the objections in response to notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 14. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Apex Court as well as different High Courts on maintainability of the writ petition:- 1. Jeans Knit P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 77 Taxmann.com 176 (SC) 2. Smt. Kiran Kanwar Vs. UOI [2017] 814 Taxmann.com 281 (Rajasthan)]. 3. Cheer Sagar Vs. CIT [2012] SCC Online Raj. 1707 (Rajasthan). 4. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2017] 398 ITR 198 (Delhi)]. (5 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] 5. Krown Agro Food (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2015] 57 Taxmann. Com 355 (Delhi). 6. Hemant Traders Vs. ITO [2015] 59 Taxmann.com 234 (Bombay). 7. CIT Vs. Indo Arab Air Services [2015] 64 Taxmann.com 257 (Delhi). 8. Hari Kishan Sunderlal Virmani Vs. DCIT [2017] 88 Taxmann.com 548 (Gujarat). 9. Varshaben Sanatbai Patel Vs. ITO [2015] 64 Taxmann.com 179 (Gujarat). 10. PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 Taxmann. Com 300 (Delhi). 11. PCIT Vs. Shodiman Investment Pvt. Ltd. [2018] 93 Taxmann.com 153 (Bombay). 15. Counsel has further placed reliance on the judgments in respect of two yardsticks, required to be considered by the Assessing Officer, for issuing notice under Section 148 i.e. reasons to suspect; or reason to believe. Counsel has placed reliance on circular/notice dt. 9th December, 2016, issued by CBDT and judgments of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in [2017] 398 ITR 198 (Delhi)], Krown Agro Food (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in [2015] 57 Taxmann. Com 355 (Delhi) and other judgment passed by the Delhi High Court and Gujarat High Court. 16. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 17. It would be appropriate to quote Sections 147 & 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:- (6 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] “Section 147:- 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 matters 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. 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; (7 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] (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.” “Section 148:-[(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:] (8 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] [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— (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.]” 18. The perusal of Section 147 & 148 makes it clear that very object of the provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to ensure that the suppressed materials or facts and the new availability of material to the Department are also to be dealt with (9 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] for the purpose of taxation. It is also very clear that in order to cover loopholes in the Tax Regime, and to control any evasion of tax by the individuals, the provisions of reopening of assessments are made and such provisions are to be invoked by following the procedures contemplated under the Act. 19. The purpose of sections 147 & 148 of the Act, 1961 is to ensure that the assessees, who have suppressed the fact at the time of filing of their income tax returns or if the Department is in possession of certain new materials in respect of the assessment of a particular year, then the assessee must be informed about the decision to reopen the assessment and after such information is provided, the procedure is required to be followed for the purpose of concluding the reassessment. 20. This Court finds that very initiation of procedures under Sections 147 & 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be interfered with by the Courts in a routine manner and judicial review against such initiation is limited. 21. It is found that Section 147 requires that the reasons must be recorded in the notice and in the absence of any reason communicated along with notice under Section 148 of the Act, the entire procedures can become null and void. The intention of the statute is that the authorities on the receipt of new material facts or any suppression of materials by the assessee, is bound to initiate proceeding in invoking under Section 147 & 148 of the Act of 1961. 22. The phraseology of “reasons to believe” has to be interpreted that the Assessing Officer on receipt of any such new material or materials in relation to suppression of fact by the assessee, has made out a prima-facie opinion that it is a case for (10 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] reopening of the assessment and then issue notice under Section 148 and thereafter, the procedure of furnishing the reasons, receiving objections and conducting scrutiny and all other procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will follow. 23. This Court finds that when notices are issued based on certain material available with the Department and on receipt of the notice, assessee has got right to seek for the reasons from the Department and the Department is bound to provide reasons, enabling the assessee to submit his explanation/objections in order to defend his case. 24. This Court finds that there is a provision for check on the Income Tax officials under the Act and the word “reasons to believe” indicate that officials cannot reopen the assessment in a routine and mechanical manner. The Assessing officer in the event of receipt of new material information or suppression, must have “reason to believe” and the reasons must be recorded in the files. The issuance of notice to the assessee and after supplying the reason, the Income Tax Officer is to adjudicate the matter in the manner known to law. 25. This Court finds that High Court cannot use the power of the Appellate Authorities in respect of the objections on the merits and demerits of the matter and the High Court cannot appreciate the question of law and facts at the initial stage, when notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is issued to the assessee for reopening the assessment. The complex facts and circumstances are required to be adjudicated by producing the documents and adducing evidences by the parties concerned (11 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] and such an exercise can not be done by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 26. This Court is also conscious of the legal principle that writ petition can be entertained, when the notices are issued by the Competent Authority having no jurisdiction or if the allegations of mala-fides are leveled or if the same is in violation of any statutory rules. 27. This Court after going through the ingredients of Section 147 of the Act, 1961 finds that the Assessing Officer has wider power, in respect of covering the escaped assessments for the purpose of reopening the assessment. The power under Section 147 of the Act, 1961, is to be exercised in various circumstances enabling the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess such income other than the income involved in the matters, which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision. 28. This Court further finds that the High Court of Madras in the case of Sun Direct TV Pvt. Ltd Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-(20) 1 has decided the similar controversy vide judgment dt. 10th October, 2018. 29. It would be appropriate to quote relevant paras of Sun Direct TV Pvt. Ltd Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle, which read as under:- “54. Considering the contentions raised by the respective parties to the cases on hand, this Court is of an opinion that issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act is nothing but initiation of the proceedings for reopening of the assessment already finalised. Undoubtedly, such reopenings are to be done cautiously and the reasons for reopening is also mandatory. In the absence of any substantial reason, (12 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment which was closed long back. 55. The very object of the provision under the Income Tax Act is to ensure that the suppressed materials or facts and the new availability of materials to the Department are also to be dealt with for the purpose of taxation. In order to cover the loopholes in the Tax Regime, and to control and evasion of tax by the individuals, the provision of reopening of assessments are made and such provisions are to be certainly invoked by following the procedures contemplated under the Act. 57. Mere issuance of notice cannot be construed as a final order. Initiation of the proceedings are to be construed as informations to the Assessee and can never be concluded as a final proceedings. Thus, the issuance of notice is an information provided to the Assessee, enabling him to avail of all further opportunities contemplated under the Statutes. Thus, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that non quoting of the reasons formed by the Assessing Officer in the impugned notice will vitiate the entire proceedings. If such a proposition is adopted, then it would be certainly difficult for the Executives to reopen the cases as per the provisions of the Act. The procedures are contemplated under the Act, enabling the Assessee to avail the opportunity and defend their case in accordance with law. 58. Thus, certain aspects which is contemplated under the provisions of the Act, cannot be interpreted, so as to defeat the purpose for which such a provision was enacted by the Legislators. Constructive interpretation of the Act and the Rules are of paramount importance. The Rule of constructive interpretation requires that the possible object and the purpose to be achieved is met out by adopting not only the balancing approach, but also by providing all reasonable opportunities to the persons, who all are connected or aggrieved 62. The amended phraseology of \"reason to believe\" must be interpreted that the Assessing Officer on receipt of any such new material or materials in relation to suppression of fact by the Assessee has made out a prima facie opinion that it is a case for reopening of the assessment, then he can issue notice under Section 148 and thereafter, the procedure of furnishing the reasons, receiving objections and conducting scrutiny and all other procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Act will suit as follow. Thus, it is not as if at the very issuance of notice requires that the reasons must be recorded in the notice itself. (13 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] 63. The very meaning of the word \"Notice\" is that \"information that tells you or warns you about something that is going to happen\". Thus, the mere notice providing an information to the Assessee that the authorities have got every reason to believe to reopen the assessment does not mean that all opinions and reasons formulated by the Assessing Officer must be communicated to the Assessee in the very notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 72. In respect of exhausting the appellate remedy available under the provisions of the Act, this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner has to exhaust the remedy provided under the Act, this Court cannot entertain the writ petition, when there is a remedy available to the aggrieved person under the Statute. The High Court cannot usurp the power of the Appellate Authorities in respect of the adjudication of the merits and the demerits of the matter. The High Court cannot appreciate the mixed question of law and facts, at the initial stage, when a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the Assessee for reopening the assessment. Such complex facts and circumstances are to be adjudicated by producing documents and by adducing evidences by the parties concerned. Such an exercise can never be done by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, entertaining a writ petition at the notice stage, must be sparingly and cautiously done. The High Courts must be restrained from entertaining such writ petitions when the very notice itself is under challenge. 73. Undoubtedly, the legal principles settled in this regard that the writ petition can be entertained if the notice has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or if the allegation of mala fides are raised or if the same is in violation of any Statutory Rules in force. Even in the case of raising an allegation of mala fides, the authorities against whom such an allegation is raised to be impleaded as party respondent in his personal capacity. In the event of not establishing any such legal ground, no writ proceedings can be entertained against a notice in a routine manner and the judicial review in this regard is certainly limited. 78. The Income Tax Department may not be aware of the income of the individual Assessees. They are assessing the tax based on the returns filed by the respective Assessees. Thus, the very concept of assessment is that the Officer who is scrutinising the returns did not aware of the income of an individual. For this reason only Act provides adequate power to deal with the cases, where there is evasion or (14 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] suppression or otherwise by the Assessees. The very source of assessment is the returns filed by the Assessee concerned. Only after the filing of the returns, the Department of Income Tax came to understand that the income of the person concerned. Thus, the reassessment may arise on several occasions and on several grounds. The Income Tax Department may receive informations from many other sources. The Income Tax Department may get some external materials as well as from various other sources. It is the process of investigation. On receipt of such materials or informations from various other sources, in such circumstances, the authorities must be in a position to reopen the assessment and impose tax. In the absence of any such lucid provision, enabling the Department reopening a case, there is a possibility of escapement of payment of tax by large number of Assessees. The very nature of the Act is to ensure that the informations and the materials collected or received from various other sources are also dealt with by the Department of Income Tax appropriately and with reference to the provisions of the Act. 81. The language employed in Section 147(1) of the Act is that \"which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the Section\". Thus even after initiation of reopening of assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. If during the course of the proceedings if any materials or informations are received by the Assessing Officer that also can be taken into consideration for the purpose of reassessment. It is crystal clear that the reasons recorded before the initiation of the reopening of the assessment alone need not be a ground for reassessment. Even after reopening of the assessment if any materials or informations are received by the Assessing Officer that also shall be included part and parcel of the proceedings and sufficient explanations shall be called for from the Assessee and accordingly a reassessment order can be passed. Thus, two circumstances arise after the conclusion of the assessment. Firstly, if the assessment is finalised, the reopening in respect of the escaped assessments can be made if any new materials or suppression of materials are identified. On such reopening of the assessment and during the course of the proceedings, if the Assessing Officer noticed any other materials or informations in respect of escaped assessment and the same also can be treated as part and parcel of the reassessment proceedings which is reopened. 82. On going through the said ingredients of the Section 147, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the Assessing Officer has got wider power in respect of covering the escaped assessments for the (15 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] purpose of reopening the assessment. The proviso to Section 147 states that \"provided further that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment\". This also provides various circumstances enabling the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess such income other than the income involving the matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision. The wideness of the power has been further clarified in the said proviso clause. 89. In the present writ petition, this Court is of an opinion that undoubtedly notice was issued based on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act. However, the reasons arrived had not been communicated to the writ petitioner. But the writ petitioner requested the reasons to be furnished. Responding to the letter sent by the writ petitioner, the Assessing Officer communicated the reasons to the Assessee/writ petitioner and the objections were rejected. Thus, the writ petitioner has not been prejudiced in respect of the proceedings communicated by the Assessing Officer. Thus, this Court, has to consider the very fact that, whether any prejudice has been caused to the Assessee resulting any injustice or otherwise in the present writ petition on hand. The writ petitioner very well can respond to the Assessing Officer and establish his genuinity or otherwise by producing the materials available with him and by providing informations known to him. Without doing so, the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition, challenging the notice. 90. Let us now look into Section 148 of the Act. Section 148 speaks about \"the issuance of notice where income has escaped assessment\". Section 148 stipulates that \"the Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this Section, record his reasons for doing so\". Whether the said provision can be interpreted as if recorded reasons by the Assessing Officer should be communicated along with the notice. The very purport of the Act is to ensure that the Assessing Officers are acting with reasons and judiciously. The Statute provides that the Assessing Officer should record the reasons only with an object to ensure that the Assessing Officers/Competent Authorities cannot act with callousness and without any basis. 91. Every actions of the Authorities Competent must be on reasonings and the same must be recorded in files. The reasons to be recorded by the Assessing Officer for taking decision to reopen the escaped (16 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] assessment does not mean that such reasons are to be communicated along with the notice itself. The notice directs the Assessee to submit his returns. If the Assessee is of an opinion that he requires the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment, then he can made a request and accordingly the same shall be furnished by the Assessing Officer to the Assessee. 93. In case of M/S. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. Income-Tax Officer And Another [MANU/SC/0361/1993: 1993 203 ITR 456], it has been held as follows:- \"One of the purposes of Section 147, appears to us to be, to ensure that a party cannot get away by wilfully 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.\" 96. This being the principles to be followed, the writ petitioner has miserably failed to establish any legally acceptable ground for the purpose of interfering with the actions initiated by the respondent by invoking the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, there is no infirmity as such, in respect of the initiation of the proceedings for reopening of the assessment under the Act and the writ petition is devoid of merits. The respondent is empowered to proceed further in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.” 30. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Assessing Officer undertakes the proceedings of reassessment, only on the basis of suspicion, without having any reasons to believe, this Court finds that the writ petition would not be maintainable against an order passed deciding the objections under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer, if has “reasons to believe” that a particular income has escaped assessment and he is not proceeding only on hear say/conjectures, no fault can be found in such action, undoubtedly reopening is to be done cautiously & reasons for reopening is (17 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] mandatory. In the absence of any substantial reason, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment which was closed long back. 31. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Jeans Knit P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Supra), the Apex Court has though remanded the matter back to the High Court where it did not entertain the writ petition against issuance of notice & also made it clear that each case is to be examined on its own merits keeping in view the scope of judicial review while entertaining such matters. 32. This Court finds, that in the instant case, in the notice which was communicated to the petitioner, it was informed to the petitioner that he was the actual beneficiary owner of some bank account in the case of one Munna Lal Pareek. This Court finds that the Assessing Officer has further given sufficient material to the petitioner by furnishing copy of assessment order of Munna Lal Pareek and order passed by the CIT (Appeals) in the case of Munna Lal Pareek. The said material or information available with the Assessing Officer has led the Assessing Officer to think that petitioner is required to be confronted by giving notice to explain the income, which was to be assessed in the hands of petitioner as the same is correct or not. 33. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition would lie even against the show cause notice, if it suffers from illegality & error is apparent on the face of record, this Court finds that the exercise of writ jurisdiction may lie even against the show cause notice but the self imposed (18 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] restriction to substitute its opinion on the view taken by the authorities, is also an important factor. 34. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Cheer Sagar Vs. CIT (Supra) has entertained a petition against notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, this Court finds that in the case of Cheer Sagar Vs. CIT (supra), the issue was with respect to the bar of limitation and the same was projected as the issue of ‘jurisdiction’. This Court considering the bar of limitation as an issue of jurisdiction, directed the Income Tax Authorities to decide the objections as preliminary objection. 35. This Court finds in the instant case that there is no issue of jurisdiction which can be said to be raised by the petitioner and it is only allegation in respect of cryptic order passed by the Assessing Officer without having any reasons to believe or to initiate the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 36. This Court further finds that the petitioner, who is given notice under Section 142 (1) to further explain and to place before the Assessing Officer the relevant facts relating to income which is now sought to be assessed, can always satisfy the authorities that the income which is now taken to be the income of the petitioner instead of one Shri Munna Lal Pareek, is well explained by their own sources. 37. Considering, all the facts, this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Income Tax Authorities and if any order of assessment/reassessment is passed, petitioner is always free to file an appeal contemplated under the Income (19 of 19) [CW-23500/2018] Tax Act, 1961. The present writ petition is not maintainable before this Court and accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. No orders as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Monika "