Abhay Chandra Dutta Lane, F.a. Road, Kumarpara, P.o. Guwahati v. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Guwahati

GAHC010050642017 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEATW.P(C)NO.7101/2017 1. Mukund System and Networking Private Limited Third Floor, Royal Arcade, Part-II, B. Baruah Road, Ulubari, P.O. Guwahati-781007, Police Station: Paltan Bazar, District: Kamrup Metro (Assam) 2. Shri Rishi Gupta (Formerly Shri Rishi Kumar Gupta) Abhay Chandra Dutta Lane, F.A. Road, Kumarpara, P.O. Guwahati-781001, Police Station: Bharalumukh, District: Kamrup Metro (Assam) ……..Petitioners -Versus- 1.The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Guwahati Room No. 502, 5[th] Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 2.Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Tax, Range-4, Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 3.Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati-2, Guwahati Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), AssamIncome Tax, Guwahati-2, Guwahati Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 4.Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), (NER), Guwahati, Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (NER), First Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam (CCA), (NER), Guwahati, Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (NER), First Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 5.Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairperson, under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001 its Chairperson, under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001 6.Union of India Represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. ……..Respondents W.P(C)NO.7102/2017 1. Mukund Infotel Private Limited Abhay Chandra Dutta Lane, F.A. Road, Kumarpara, P.O. Guwahati-781001, Police Station: Bharalumukh, District: Kamrup Metro (Assam) 2. Shri Rishi Gupta (Formerly Shri Rishi Kumar Gupta) Abhay Chandra Dutta Lane, F.A. Road, Kumarpara, P.O. Guwahati-781001, Police Station: Bharalumukh, District: Kamrup Metro (Assam) ……..Petitioners -Versus- 1.The Assistant/Deputy Income Tax, Circle-4, Guwahati Commissioner of Room No. 502, 5[th] Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 2.Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), AssamBasti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 3.Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati-2, Guwahati Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), AssamIncome Tax, Guwahati-2, Guwahati Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam Commissioner of Room No. 502, 5[th] Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 2.Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), AssamBasti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 3.Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati-2, Guwahati Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), AssamIncome Tax, Guwahati-2, Guwahati Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 4.Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), (NER), Guwahati, Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (NER), First Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam (CCA), (NER), Guwahati, Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (NER), First Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 5.Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairperson, under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001 its Chairperson, under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001 6.Union of India Represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. ……..Respondents W.P(C)NO.7103/2017 1. Mukund Infrastructure Private Limited Abhay Chandra Dutta Lane, F.A. Road, Kumarpara, P.O. Guwahati-781001, Police Station: Bharalumukh, District: Kamrup Metro (Assam) 2. Shri Rishi Gupta (Formerly Shri Rishi Kumar Gupta) Abhay Chandra Dutta Lane, F.A. Road, Kumarpara, P.O. Guwahati-781001, Police Station: Bharalumukh, District: Kamrup Metro (Assam) ……..Petitioners -Versus- 1. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Guwahati Room No. 502, 5[th]Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 2.Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 3.Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati-2, Guwahati Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 4.Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), (NER), Guwahati, Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (NER), First Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 5.Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairperson, under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001 6.Union of India Represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. ……..Respondents W.P(C)NO.7104/2017 1. Pawan Communications Private Limited Abhay Chandra Dutta Lane, F.A. Road, Kumarpara, P.O. Guwahati-781001, Police Station: Bharalumukh, District: Kamrup Metro (Assam) 2. Shri Rishi Gupta (Formerly Shri Rishi Kumar Gupta) Abhay Chandra Dutta Lane, F.A. Road, Kumarpara, P.O. Guwahati-781001, Police Station: Bharalumukh, District: Kamrup Metro (Assam), represented by the Director, Pawan Communications Pvt. Ltd ……..Petitioners -Versus- 1. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of 6.Union of India Represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. ……..Respondents W.P(C)NO.7104/2017 1. Pawan Communications Private Limited Abhay Chandra Dutta Lane, F.A. Road, Kumarpara, P.O. Guwahati-781001, Police Station: Bharalumukh, District: Kamrup Metro (Assam) 2. Shri Rishi Gupta (Formerly Shri Rishi Kumar Gupta) Abhay Chandra Dutta Lane, F.A. Road, Kumarpara, P.O. Guwahati-781001, Police Station: Bharalumukh, District: Kamrup Metro (Assam), represented by the Director, Pawan Communications Pvt. Ltd ……..Petitioners -Versus- 1. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Guwahati Room No. 502, 5[th]Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 2. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 3.Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati-2, Guwahati Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 4.Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), (NER), Guwahati, Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (NER), First Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 5.Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairperson, under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001 6.Union of India Represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. ……..Respondents W.P(C)NO.7482/2017 1. Pawan Cement Company Private Limited Represented by its director Shri Rajesh Kumar Mittal, Shanti Sadan, Alok Press, Bye Land Road, Narayan Nagar, Kumarpara, P.O. Guwahati-781001, Police Station: Bharalumukh, District: Kamrup Metro (Assam) 2. Shri Rajesh Kumar Mittal Shanti Sadan, Alok Press, Bye Land Road, Narayan Nagar, Kumarpara, P.O. Guwahati-781001, Police Station: Bharalumukh, District: Kamrup Metro (Assam) ……..Petitioners -Versus- 1. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Guwahati Room No. 502, 5[th]Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 2. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 3.Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati-2, Guwahati Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 4.Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), (NER), Guwahati, Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (NER), First Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, P.O. Guwahati-781005, Police Station: Dispur, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam 5.Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairperson, under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001 6.Union of India Represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. ……..Respondents Advocate for the petitioner :Mr. R Goenka, Sr. Advocate Assisted by Mr. U.K. Borthakur, Advocate Advocate for the respondents :Mr. S.C. Keyal, Standing Counsel, Income Tax Dates of Hearing : 13.06.2024, 20.06.2024, 23.07.2024, 06.08.2024, 20.09.2024, 04.03.2025 07.04.2025 Date of Judgment and Order: 21.07.2025 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) 5.Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairperson, under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001 6.Union of India Represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. ……..Respondents Advocate for the petitioner :Mr. R Goenka, Sr. Advocate Assisted by Mr. U.K. Borthakur, Advocate Advocate for the respondents :Mr. S.C. Keyal, Standing Counsel, Income Tax Dates of Hearing : 13.06.2024, 20.06.2024, 23.07.2024, 06.08.2024, 20.09.2024, 04.03.2025 07.04.2025 Date of Judgment and Order: 21.07.2025 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) These writ petitions are preferred by the assessees assailing the proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. It raises similar questions of law and are therefore taken up together for hearing and disposal. 2. In W.P(C) No. 7101/2017; W.P(C) No. 7102/2017; W.P(C) No. 7103/2017 and W.P.(C) No. 7104/2017, the petitioners put into challenge the recording of reasons for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the Notice under Sub-Section 2 of Section 143 dated 23.05.2017 as well as the notices under Sub-Section 1 of Section 142 dated 23.05.2017 and 31.10.2017. 3. In W.P(C) No. 7482/2017, the petitioner is a private limited company. The company has submitted its return of income for the assessment years 2010-11 on 14.10.2010 showing total income at Rs. NIL. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 re-opened the case of the writ petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by issuing of notice dated 31.03.2017 under Section 148 of the Act. In response to the Notice under Section 148 of the Act, the petitioner submitted its return of income on 09.08.2017 and thereafter vide its letter dated 10.08.2017 applied to the respondent No. 1 to provide its ground on which the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. The respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 30.08.2017 communicated to the petitioner copy of the reasons recorded for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Hence the writ petition has been filed put into challenge the recording of reasons for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the notice under Section 148 dated 31.03.2017, the notice under Sub-Section (2) of Section 143 dated 06.11.2017 and notice under Sub-Section (1) of Section 142 dated 06.11.2017. 4. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged W.P.(C) No. 7103/2017 before the Court as a lead case, the facts pertaining to the said writ petition are referred to wherever required. However, the specific facts in respect to the other writ petitions will be referred to accordingly. 5. The petitioner company is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on the 14[th] day of February, 2008. The petitioner has registered office at Abhay Chandra Dutta Lane, F.A. Road, Kumarpara, Guwahati-781001. The petitioner is a regular assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is represented in the present proceedings by one of the Directors who is arrayed as petitioner No. 2. 4. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged W.P.(C) No. 7103/2017 before the Court as a lead case, the facts pertaining to the said writ petition are referred to wherever required. However, the specific facts in respect to the other writ petitions will be referred to accordingly. 5. The petitioner company is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on the 14[th] day of February, 2008. The petitioner has registered office at Abhay Chandra Dutta Lane, F.A. Road, Kumarpara, Guwahati-781001. The petitioner is a regular assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is represented in the present proceedings by one of the Directors who is arrayed as petitioner No. 2. 6. The case projected before this Court that for the previous Financial year 2009-10 relevant to assessment year 2010-11, the petitioner had earned income related to renting of immovable property and did not commence its business activities on mobile and other telephone connectivity services. It is submitted that it’s original return of income under Section 139 voluntarily for the said year on 04.03.2011 disclosing total taxable income as Rs. NIL. Thereafter a search and seizure operation and survey were carried on under Section 132 in the premises belonging to the petitioner company. The petitioner thereafter submitted an identical return on 08.09.2014 in response to the notices received from the Department under Section 153A/153C read with Section 142(1) of the Act. Thereafter a scrutiny assessment was made under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Act. After considering the materials in support of the return as required by the Office of the respondent No. 1 making the assessment of the total income at NIL by accepting the income disclosing the return. Thereafter on 31.03.2017 a notice under Section 148(1) was issued by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner No. 1 to assess/re-assess its income for the assessment year 2010-11 on the ground that she had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147. The petitioner No. 1 thereafter as per procedure prescribed submitted a return on 27.04.2017 which was identical in respect of the earlier returns dated 04.03.2011 and 08.09.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a certified copy of the reasons recorded. The reasons were thereafter supplied to the petitioner which however did not indicate the date it was recorded on. 7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 made a statement that information was available to the assessing officer that the petitioner No. 1 had raised share capital of Rs. 1,51,00,000.00. It was further mentioned in the reasons that this information was received from the DIT(Investigation), Kolkatathat most of the allottee companies were paper companies without It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the any genuine business. In the reasons, it was mentioned that most of 7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 made a statement that information was available to the assessing officer that the petitioner No. 1 had raised share capital of Rs. 1,51,00,000.00. It was further mentioned in the reasons that this information was received from the DIT(Investigation), Kolkatathat most of the allottee companies were paper companies without It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the any genuine business. In the reasons, it was mentioned that most of the companies were owned by an individual named Shri Narendar Kumar Jain. During the survey conducted, Shri Narendra Kr. Jain had sworn on oath on 11.04.2014 that he dealt in dubious transaction as a bogus entry provider and providing bogus unsecured loans. However, these reasons were not supported by any tangible materials or details as to how the escapement of income of the writ petitioner company for the assessment year 2010-11 had any link with the so-called activities of the said Shri Narendara Kr. Jain. On such vague information based on allegations without any tangible materials showing the link between the information and the escapement of income of the writ petitioner, the respondent No. 1 held that it had reasons to believe that income of Rs. 1,51,00,000.00 escaped assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 and as such, notice under Section 148(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners in response to the notice served filed its objections against the assessment/re-assessment proceedings by way of written submissions filed on 12.10.2017 objecting to the proposed action sought to be taken and that the same were violative of the procedure and the provisions prescribed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, by order dated 24.10.2017, the assessing officer rejected the objections raised by the petitioner company, although the specific objections raised by the petitioner were not specifically met by the authorities. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the materials/basis for stating in the reasons recorded that most of the allottee companies were paper companies with no genuine business of their own have not been indicated. No such material/basis is disclosed in the reasons recorded to lead to the formation of such a belief. Details of the names and addresses of the allottee companies, number of shares allotted, amount received from them, mode of receipt etc. have not been disclosed in the reasons recorded, and therefore, totally opaque. 9. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was incumbent upon the assessing officer to incorporate or indicate in the reasons recorded, at least the very essential part of details of “data prepared by the DIT(Investigation), Kolkata” referred to in the reasons and how it led to formation of belief that the petitioner’s income had escaped assessment. This had not been done. The essential materials to link the reasons with belief arrived at by the assessing officer is absent. “Narendra Kumar Jain” referred to in the reasons recorded in whose case survey was conducted on 11.04.2014 is a stranger. No case has been made out that he provided any accommodation entry to the petitioner. In the reasons 9. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was incumbent upon the assessing officer to incorporate or indicate in the reasons recorded, at least the very essential part of details of “data prepared by the DIT(Investigation), Kolkata” referred to in the reasons and how it led to formation of belief that the petitioner’s income had escaped assessment. This had not been done. The essential materials to link the reasons with belief arrived at by the assessing officer is absent. “Narendra Kumar Jain” referred to in the reasons recorded in whose case survey was conducted on 11.04.2014 is a stranger. No case has been made out that he provided any accommodation entry to the petitioner. In the reasons recorded also there is no such statement attributed to Narendra Kumar Jain where he has stated that he provided any accommodation entry to the petitioner company. His statement was not recorded in connection with the petitioner company’s case. Any information received from the Investigation wing/valuation officer or from any other source, per se cannot be said to be a “tangible material” for reopening of a case in the absence of any enquiry conducted by the assessing officer to verify its correctness, relevance or otherwise its link to the alleged escapement of income. In the Instant case the reasons do not disclose that after receipt of information any such enquiry was conducted by the assessing officer. The assessing officer merely accepted the vague information in a mechanical manner without application of his mind. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material/evidence to show that the funds for share capital emanated from the petitioner company. The petitioner company’s assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 was made on 31.03.2015 vide order passed under Sections 153C/143(3) by the assessing officer after proper verification of all the seized material details, documents and audited accounts. The aforesaid order dated 31.03.2015 was passed with the prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Guwahati (Respondent No.2) as per provisions of section 153D of the Act. There was a search & seizure operation in the case of the petitioner companies on 11.07.2012 and no incriminating material regarding share capital was found during the course of search. The information regarding increase in share capital was disclosed by the petitioner in its audited accounts which was already on record. (Annexure-2 of the writ petition). Thus, the petitioner had necessarily made full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for completion of its assessment and there was no failure on the part of the petitioner on this count. 11. Referring to the provisions of Section 147, it is submitted that as per the first proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where an assessment has been made under Section 143(3) of the Act, no action shall be taken under Section 147 of the Act after 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 failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. The assessing officer has not disclosed in the reasons recorded as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly which is necessary for the assessment of that assessment year so as to establish the vital link between the reasons and the evidence. This vital link is necessary as a safe guard against arbitrary re-opening of the concluded assessment. It is submitted that there is no whisper or allegation in the reasons recorded to the effect that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for that year. not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly which is necessary for the assessment of that assessment year so as to establish the vital link between the reasons and the evidence. This vital link is necessary as a safe guard against arbitrary re-opening of the concluded assessment. It is submitted that there is no whisper or allegation in the reasons recorded to the effect that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for that year. 12. It is submitted that while rejecting the petitioner's objections dated 09-10-2017 on the reasons recorded by the assessing officer (Annexure “16”), the assessing officer in her order dated 24-10-2017 (Annexure “17”) has introduced certain new facts, which were not there in the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. It is submitted that it is a settled law that in the event of challenge to the jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of reasons recorded by an assessing officer, the reasons are required to be read as these are recorded and no addition/substitution/deletion are permissible to such reasons. Therefore, introduction of new facts by the assessing officer was not permissible as per settled law. Further, while rejecting the objections of the petitioner vide her order dated 24.10.2017, the assessing officer has referred to the provisions of Explanation 2(ca) to Section 147 and has stated that in the instant case, information has been received from the Directorate of Investigation that the petitioner company has raised share capital with the allotment on 31.03.2010 to the tune of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- with the face value of Rs. 10/- and premium of Rs. 90/-. 13. Referring to Explanation 2(ca) inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.06.2016, it is submitted that Explanation 2 lays down the instances which may be deemed to be cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Under Clause (ca), the notice may be issued by the assessing officer on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed authority under sub-section 2 of Section 133C. It is submitted that Section 133C was introduced in the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014. However, no income tax authority was authorized by the CBDT to act as prescribed authority under Section 133C till 2019. Even in 2019 also the centralized verification scheme 2019 was notified vide Notification No. S.O 550(E) dated 30.01.2019. Even under the said scheme, only centralized verification centre was authorized to issue notices and process the information or documents and make available the outcome of the processing to the assessing officer. Under the said scheme, only the Commissioner of Income Tax (e-Verification), Delhi was authorized for the purposes of Section 133C having jurisdiction over “All Cases of persons in respect of all incomes within the limits of all states and Union territories of India with respect to whom there is any information in possession of Directorate of Income-Tax (Systems), Central Board of Direct Taxes”. It is therefore submitted that not every information is included within the scope and ambit of Section 133C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. To be an information under Section 133C(2) of the Act, requirement of Section 133C of the Act will have to be met. assessing officer. Under the said scheme, only the Commissioner of Income Tax (e-Verification), Delhi was authorized for the purposes of Section 133C having jurisdiction over “All Cases of persons in respect of all incomes within the limits of all states and Union territories of India with respect to whom there is any information in possession of Directorate of Income-Tax (Systems), Central Board of Direct Taxes”. It is therefore submitted that not every information is included within the scope and ambit of Section 133C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. To be an information under Section 133C(2) of the Act, requirement of Section 133C of the Act will have to be met. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statutory provision of Sections 147, 148, 149 and 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Referring to these provisions, it is submitted that the provision of Section 148(1) required recording of reasons within the meaning of Section 147 before issuance of Notice under Section 148 and such provision is mandatory and such reasons are subject to judicial scrutiny. It is submitted that the reasons are to be read as they were recorded by the assessing officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No addition can be made to those reasons and no inference can be called to be drawn on the basis of the reasons not recorded. The Assessing Officer, in the event of challenge to the reasons, must be able to justify the same based on materials available on record. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment rendered by the following Judgments: 1. Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Vs. C.I.T, reported in (2017) 390 ITR 137 (Gauhati); 2. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar, A.C.I.T, reported in (2004) 268 ITR 332(Bombay); 3. Assam Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 275 ITR 609 (Gauhati); 4. I.T.O. Vs. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. reported in (1979) 118 ITR 1 (SC) and 5. Northern Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T., reported in (2013) 357 ITR 586 (Delhi) 15. The second limb of argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the term “reason to believe” suggests that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person, based on reasonable grounds and though the Assessing Officer may act on direct or substantial evidence, but he cannot act on mere suspicion, gossip or rumor. It is submitted that the grounds or reasons, which led to the formation of belief as contemplated by Section 147 of the Act of 1961 must have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income of the assessee from assessment. It is submitted that the expression “reason to believe” does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and it must be held in good faith and cannot be merely pretense or based on extraneous or irrelevant consideration. It is submitted that there must be a “live link” between the material and the formation of belief about the escapement of income. It is submitted that if there is no rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief so that on such reasons no one properly instructed on facts and law could reasonably entertain the belief, the conclusion would be inescapable that the Assessing Officer did not have reason to believe that any part of the assessee had escaped his assessment. In support of his contention, he relies on the Judgments rendered in I.T.O Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC); JCIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. reported in (2002) 258 ITR 126 (Gauhati); CIT Vs. Atul Jain & Vinita Jain, reported in (2008) 299 ITR 383 (Delhi); Assam Co. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors, reported in (2005) 275 ITR 609 (Gauhati) and CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). 16. The third limb of argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the Income Tax Officer on the point as to whether action should be initiated for re-opening assessment. It is not any and every material howsoever vague and indefinite or distant, remote or far-fetched, which would warrant the formation of belief relating to escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment. The Court cannot substitute its own opinion with that of the Income Tax Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner again refers to the Judgments of Lakshmani Mewal Das (Supra); George Williamson (Assam) Ltd (Supra) and Sesa Sterlite (India) Ltd Vs. A.C.I.T., reported in (2019) 417 ITR 334 (Bombay). 17. The forth limb of argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the re-assessment proceedings are to be initiated after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in terms of first proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment for that year, then the Assessing Officer must state so in the reasons recorded as to what was the material fact that was not disclosed by the assessee and the action should be founded on such reasons. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgments rendered in ACIT Vs. CEAT Ltd, reported in (2022) 449 ITR 171 (SC); CIT Vs. Sonitpur Solvex Ltd., reported in (2013) 352 ITR 305 (Gauhati); Cedric De Soouza Faria Vs. DCIT, reported in (2018) 400 ITR 30 (Bombay); Usha Exports Vs. ACIT, reported in (2020) 312 CTR 237 (Bombay); Fenner India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, reported in (2000) 241 ITR 672 (Madras); Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Vs. CIT, reported in (2009) 308 ITR 38 (Delhi) and SABH Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT, reported in (2017) 398 ITR 198 (Delhi). 18. The fifth limb of argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the duty cast on the assessee is only to make full and true disclosure of all primary facts. It is not for him to tell the Assessing Officer what inferences, whether of facts or law should be drawn by the Assessing Officer. To refer the meaning “true and full disclosure”, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO, reported in (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC); Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO, reported in (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC). The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the Judgment of this Court rendered in Sonitpur Solvex Ltd (Supra). 19. The sixth limb of argument before this Court is that the information received from the investigation Wing is to the effect that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further enquiry was undertaken by the assessing officer to verify its correctness, relevance or otherwise, then such information per se cannot be said to be a “tangible material” for re-opening of a case. In the present case, the Assessing Officer mechanically accepted the vague information received without any application of mind to conclude that there was reason to believe about escapement of income of the petitioner assessee, on the materials received from the investigation wing. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied upon the Judgment rendered in JCIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd, reported in (2002) 258 ITR 126 (Gauhati) as also Judgments rendered in Chhugamal Raj Pal Vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors, reported in (1971) 79 ITR 63 (SC); PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd, reported in (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Delhi); PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Delhi); CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Brooking Ltd., reported in (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Delhi); CIT Vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd., reported in (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Delhi) CIT Vs. Atual & Vinita Jain (Supra); ACIT Vs. Dhariya Constructions Co. reported in (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC). 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner further questions the impugned re-assessment proceedings on the ground that the Assessing Officer in the garb of exercising powers under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot institute a roving enquiry with the object of fishing out material. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer is making an attempt to verify the share capital raised by the assessee company on the ground as most of the allottee companies are paper companies with no genuine business of their own. This is nothing but an attempt by the assessing officer to make a roving and fishing enquiry which is not permissible while exercising powers under Section 147. In support of his contentions, he has pressed into service the Judgment of Assam Co. Ltd Vs. Union of India (Supra). 21. The further proposition raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the power to re-open a case under Section 147 of the Act, there must “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income from the assessment. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the Judgment of Kelvinator of India Ltd (Supra) and Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (Supra). 22. It is further submitted that the writ petition is maintainable against a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Notwithstanding the plea of alternative remedy, a writ petition is maintainable to question a notice issued under Section 148 to re-open the assessment in the absence of tangible and cogent materials leading to atleast a prima facie view that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. It is submitted that the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd (Supra) which had laid down the proposition is still holding its field and has not been diluted since. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the Judgments rendered in Smt. Jaswamt Kaur Sehgal & Ors. Vs. CIT, reported in (2004) 271 ITR 475 (Gauhati) was well as Garden Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, reported in (2004) 268 ITR 48 (Gujarat). 23. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submits before the Court that disclosure in the Balance Sheet amounts to full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment. It is submitted that the Balance Sheet which was filed by the petitioner company disclosed all the true and full materials necessary for assessment on the basis of which the scrutiny assessment were also conducted. Therefore, there was no suppression of materials before the authorities concerned and in the absence thereof the Assessing Officer could not have come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income without arriving at a conclusion as to how the Balance Sheet filed by the petitioner failed to disclose full and true materials necessary for assessment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ratio of the Judgment rendered in CIT Vs. Corporation Bank Ltd., reported in (2002) 254 ITR 791 (SC) by the Apex Court was considered elaborately and discussed by the Gauhati High Court in Sonitpur Solvex Ltd (Supra). Similar view was adopted by the Gauhati High Court in another Judgment rendered in DCIT Vs. Naginimara Veener and Saw Mills Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2000) 241 ITR 636 (Gauhati). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the submissions made above and the law laid down by the various Courts including the Apex Court and the Gauhati High Court which have been referred to the proceedings sought to be initiated against the writ petitioners under Section 147 by the Assessing Officer is totally uncalled for and contrary to the provisions of law and the same should there be interfered with, set aside and the impugned Notices as well as the reasons be set aside and quashed and the writ petitions be allowed. 24. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department strongly disputes to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that in compliance to the notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act dated 31/3/2017, the assessee company filed a return on 27.04.2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 showing total income at Rs. 1,64,62,050 and the tax payable on it at Rs. 59,80,122 and consequent to a search and seizure operation conducted in the case, assessee company had filed return under section 153(A) vide acknowledgement No. 345082611040914 dated 04.09.2014 declaring total income at Rs.1,64,62.050/- and tax payable thereon was shown as Rs. 65,76,379/- and accordingly assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153(A) was completed on 31.03,2015 determining total income at Rs. 2,61,17,250/- 25. Mr. Keyal further submits that the notice under section 148 issued to the writ petitioner on 31.3.2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 based on reason to believe that income chargeable to the tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 26. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the return of income filed on 24.07.2017 in response to the notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act was identical in all respect with the aforesaid revised return filed on 04.09.2014 since the return filed by the assessee company in response to the section 148 proves that the writ petitioner participate in the proceedings. In response to the request of the writ petitioner the reason recorded under section 148 of Income Tax Act, certified copy of the same was supplied to the assesse company dated 07.09.2017. 27. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the assessment officer formed the belief that there is escapement of income tax of income was clearly mentioned therein and necessary approval of the competent authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Income Tax had been duly obtained online within the prescribed period. 28. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that notice was issued on 31.03.2017 with prior online approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati-2 Guwahati vide his approval dated 31.03.2017. The reasons for reopening is clearly mentioned in the approval sent to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax compliance with the mandatory provision of section 151 of the act. The information based on which proceedings under section 147 was initiated was received after the completion of assessment under section 143(3)/153(A). The proceeding was initiated based on the information available to the assessment officer who has jurisdiction to know that income has escaped and reason to believe and has prima facie materials to reopen the case. The information was received as the directorate of investigation which forms the prescribed authority as per section 133 of income tax act and accordingly reason to believe was formed on the basis of information received which cannot be said without jurisdiction. 29. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the information was received after conducting necessary enquiry that the share capital raised by the assessee company requires verification as most of the allotted companies are paper companies with no genuine business of their own. And these companies belong to well known entry operator of Kolkata, Shri Narendra Kr Jain who had sworn on oath that he is an accommodation entry provider who provides bogus accommodation entries, bogus unsecured loan, etc in lieu of cash commission. A distinctive feature of a paper company is one which is trading only in shares with no other substantial business-oriented transaction as such featuring in its balance sheet and profit and loss account. It is submitted that a paper company is established to involve in ‘jamakharchi’/ accommodation purpose not for any other work. It is submitted that income chargeable to tax which has work. It is submitted that income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment exceeds Rs. 1 lakh and the assessment year falls within the time limit of 6 years. Therefore notice under section 148 was validly issued after taking prior approval of the jurisdictional commissioner of income tax. An independent enquiry is not required for formation of a reason to believe, enquiry is to follow during the course of assessment proceedings, reason to believe was formed on the objective satisfaction of assessing officer based on specific information received from DDIT(Inv), unit-2(2), working under DIT(Inv), Guwahati, which forms prescribed authority under section 133C of the Act. 30. Mr. Keyal further submits that the writ petitioner has already filed return in response under section 148 of the act and participate in the assessment under section 147 in the act. The writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the writ petitioner has alternative remedy by way of filing appeal against assessment order. It is submitted that the notification relied by the writ petitioner is not applicable in the instant case as the same is issued subsequently. The learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the following authorities in support of his contentions: 1. Girish Kumar Agarwalla Vs. The Assistaint Commisisoner of Income Tax, reported in 2023 (0) Supreme (Gau) 1358; 2. Rochana Agarwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 2022 Legal Eagel (ALD) 154 and 3. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. Chhabil Das Agarwal, reported in 2014 (