M/S.t.c.v.engineering Pvt.ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle Ii (2), Chennai – 34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.11.2018 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAMW.P.Nos.34676 & 34677 of 2003 and W.M.P.Nos.42125 & 42126 of 2003 M/s.T.C.V.Engineering Pvt.Ltd.,25, Parameswari Nagar, Ist street,Adyar, Chennai – 600 020,represented by its Director,C.Mohan ...Petitioner in both WPs Vs 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II (2), Chennai – 34. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II (2), New No.46 (Old No.108), Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondents in both WPs PRAYER in W.P.No.34676 of 2003: Writ Petition filed underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India praying for theissuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on thefile of the respondents in P.A.No.101T/96-97 dated 18.02.2003 inrespect of the Asst. Year 1996-97 supported by the letter dated28.10.2003. PRAYER in W.P.No.34677 of 2003: Writ Petition filed underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India praying for theissuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on thefile of the 2[nd] respondent in P.A.No.101T/97-98 dated 03.06.2003in respect of the Asst. Year 1997-98 supported by the letterdated 28.10.2003 and issue a writ of certiorari. For Petitioner :Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar in both WPsFor Respondents:Mr.A.P.Srinivas in both WPs COMMON ORDER The notices issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the reassessmentproceedings issued by the respondents in proceedings dated11.11.2003, are under challenge in these writ petitions. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states thatthe writ petitioner-company was engaged in the business ofexecuting a civil contract works and assessed to income tax. TheIncome Tax Department initiated proceedings under Section 132-Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of Mr.T.T.V.Dinakaran, adirector of the petitioner company. The Income Tax Department,in the course of the said action, recovered certain documentsrelating to the petitioner- company and proposed to assess thepetitioner under Section 158 BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. In response to the above said notice, the petitionersubmitted a return admitting an income of Rs.1,41,04,160/-,based on its books and regularly maintained accounts which areduly audited. The petitioner had also claimed depreciation incalculation of income claimed at the rate of 40% on Bull dozers,Road Rollers, Jeep with trailer and other earth-movingequipments used in respect of its Civil Engineering Contracts. 4. The petitioner states that in computing the incomeunder Section 148 BD, the amount of income declared for theassessment years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996, wherein the petitionerhad claimed supervisory charges payable to M/s.T.C.V.Packers,amounting to Rs.24.68 lakhs for the assessment year 1994-1995and Rs.33.67 lakhs for the assessment year 1995-1996. Based onthe arrangement between the petitioner and M/s.T.C.V.Packers,the petitioner was liable to pay 10% of the gross income fromtheir contracts M/s.T.C.V.Packers as supervisory charges. But nosuch supervisory charge was payable to the previous assessmentyear 1996-1997 and the petitioner did not make any such claim inrespect of the assessment year 1996-1997. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Assistant Commissioner,Central Circle II(2) Chennai, the petitioner filed an appealbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in IT (SSA) No.110/(Mds)/98, challenging the dis-allowance of depreciation on theequipments held by the petitioner, apart from challenging thecorrectness of the assessment on the various contentionsincluding the dis-allowance relating to the supervisory charges. 7. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide its orderdated 20.11.2002, disposed of the appeal by deleting theadditions from the block assessment on the ground that theseitems cannot be included in the block assessment. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Assistant Commissioner,Central Circle II(2) Chennai, the petitioner filed an appealbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in IT (SSA) No.110/(Mds)/98, challenging the dis-allowance of depreciation on theequipments held by the petitioner, apart from challenging thecorrectness of the assessment on the various contentionsincluding the dis-allowance relating to the supervisory charges. 7. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide its orderdated 20.11.2002, disposed of the appeal by deleting theadditions from the block assessment on the ground that theseitems cannot be included in the block assessment. 8. While this being so, the petitioner received anotice Under section 148 of Income Tax Act from the respondentdated 18.02.2003, which was served on 21.02.2003, stating thatthe respondent had reason to believe that the income chargeableto assessment for the assessment year 1996-1997 has escaped theassessment within the meaning of Section 148 of the Income TaxAct 1961 and proposed to assess the income for the saidassessment year. 9. In response to the notice issued under Section 148of Act, the petitioner filed a letter stating that the returnfiled originally for the said assessment year 1996-1997 shall betreated as return in response to notice issued under Section 148of the Act. 10. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made asubmission that the reopening of the assessment was beyond 4years and therefore, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdictionto issue impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act. 11. The Assessing Officer has no reason to believe thatthe income had escaped assessment to reopen such assessment byexercising the jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. 12. Block assessment under Section 143 (3) read withSection 158 BD in support of the contention that the AssessingAuthority had already gone through in detail on the issues,which they consider sufficient reason to believe that the incomehad escaped assessment in the reopened assessment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. The Assessing Authority has merely exercising thejurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act, to make rowingenquiries, which is not warranted under the provisions of IncomeTax Act. 14. It is further contended that no authority under therank of the Joint Commissioner can issue a notice under Section148 after expiry of 4 years from the relevant Assessment Yearunless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied under the reasonsrecorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case forissue of such notice when the case is specifically covered bySection 151 (2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and it does not fallwithin the provisions of Sub-Section 1 (i) of Section 151. 15. At the outset, it is contended that the very noticeissued by the authority under Section 148 of the Act, is withoutjurisdiction, the learned counsel for the petitioner is of anopinion that the procedures contemplated were not followed. Thisapart, there is no reason to believe for reopening of theassessment for the year 1996-1997. The provision warrants thereasons to be recorded and to the knowledge of the petitioner,no such valid reason has been recorded before issuing the noticeunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the notice itselfis liable to be scrapped. 15. At the outset, it is contended that the very noticeissued by the authority under Section 148 of the Act, is withoutjurisdiction, the learned counsel for the petitioner is of anopinion that the procedures contemplated were not followed. Thisapart, there is no reason to believe for reopening of theassessment for the year 1996-1997. The provision warrants thereasons to be recorded and to the knowledge of the petitioner,no such valid reason has been recorded before issuing the noticeunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the notice itselfis liable to be scrapped. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents, appearingon behalf of the Income Tax Department, reiterated thecontentions by stating that under Section 147 of the Income TaxAct, the Assessing Officer is empowered to reopen the escapedassessment, if he has a reason to believe that any incomechargeable to the tax has escaped assessment for the AssessmentYear. Such officer may subject to the provisions of Sections 148to 153 assessed or reassessed such income also be chargeable totax has escaped assessment and subsequently in the course of theproceedings under this Section which formed the loss ordepreciation allowance or any other allowance as the case may befor the assessment year concerned. 17. In respect of the contention of the writ petitionerthat the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, was issuedwithout jurisdiction in view of the fact that the notice was notissued within the prescribed time limit of four years. It iscontended by the respondents that the time limit for notice iscontemplated under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act. Section149 of the Income Tax Act, reads as under:-“149. Time Limit for Notice :(1) No notice under Section 148 shall beissued for the relevant assessment year, - [(a) if four years have elapsed from theend of the relevant assessment year, unless thecase falls under clause (b) or clause (c) ;] [(b) if four years, but not more than sixyears, have elapsed from the end of therelevant assessment year unless the incomechargeable to tax which has escaped assessmentamounts to or is likely to amount to one lakhrupees or more for that year.] [(c) if four years, but not more thansixteen years, have elapsed from the end of therelevant assessment year unless the income inrelation to any asset (including financialinterest in any entity) located outside India,chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment.] Explanation : In determining incomechargeable to tax which has escaped assessmentfor the purposes of this sub-section, theprovisions of Explanation 2 of Section 147shall apply as they apply for the purposes ofthat section. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) asto the issue of notice shall be subject to theprovisions of Section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice underSection 148 is to be served is a person treatedas the agent of a non-resident under Section163 and the assessment, reassessment orrecomputation to be made in pursuance of thenotice is to be made on him as the agent ofsuch non-resident, the notice shall not beissued after the expiry of a period of sixyears from the end of the relevant assessmentyear. Explanation : For the removal of doubts,it is hereby clarified that the provisions ofsub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by theFinance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable forany assessment year beginning on or before the1[st] day of April, 2012.” 18. Section 149(a) is inapplicable to the case of thepetitioner as the petitioner falls under the category of beyondone lakh. Thus Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, is applicable in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Explanation : For the removal of doubts,it is hereby clarified that the provisions ofsub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by theFinance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable forany assessment year beginning on or before the1[st] day of April, 2012.” 18. Section 149(a) is inapplicable to the case of thepetitioner as the petitioner falls under the category of beyondone lakh. Thus Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, is applicable in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respect of the case of the petitioner. Thus, the reopening ofthe assessment is to be done by the Assessing Officer within theperiod of six years from the assessment year. In the presentcase on hand, admittedly, the notice was issued within a periodof six years. Thus, there is no infirmity, as such, in respectof issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act isconcerned. 19. With reference to the said objections by therespondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawnthe attention of this Court regarding Section 147, which readsthat “Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) ofSection 143 or this Section has been made for the relevantassessment year, no action shall be taken under this Sectionafter the expiry of four years from the end of the relevantassessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escapedassessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure onthe part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 orin response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section142 or Section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all materialfacts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year”. 20. Relying on the said provision, the learned counselfor the petitioner states that the proviso to clause would beapplicable to the case of the writ petitioner. Thus, thereopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer itself isperverse and not in accord with the proviso clause to Section147. 21. The learned counsel for the respondents objectedthe said contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioner bystating that all such material facts and the details are to beassessed by the Assessing Officer. Even if the petitioner is ofan opinion that the initiation of the proceedings under Section148 is not in accord with law, then also the petitioner has tosubmit his objections, enabling the Assessing Officer toconsider all the materials and the facts and thereafter, take adecision in respect of the reopening of the closed assessment.However, the same cannot be raised in a writ petition, as thepetitioner is bound to respond to the notice and submit all thematerials and Assessment Officer has to consider the sameindependently, take a decision in accord with the provisions ofthe Act. 22. It is clarified by the learned counsel for therespondents that the case of the writ petitioner is not fallingunder Section 143 (3), which is merely procedural one. Even inthe impugned order dated 11.11.2003, it is stated as follows:“However, the correct Section underwhich assessment passed, is under Section https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 158-BC (c), which goes as follows:-“The Assessing Officer, ondetermination of the undisclosedincome of the block period inaccordance with this Chapter,shall pass an order of assessmentand determine the tax payable byhim on the basis of suchassessment”. 22. It is clarified by the learned counsel for therespondents that the case of the writ petitioner is not fallingunder Section 143 (3), which is merely procedural one. Even inthe impugned order dated 11.11.2003, it is stated as follows:“However, the correct Section underwhich assessment passed, is under Section https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 158-BC (c), which goes as follows:-“The Assessing Officer, ondetermination of the undisclosedincome of the block period inaccordance with this Chapter,shall pass an order of assessmentand determine the tax payable byhim on the basis of suchassessment”. Reference to Section 143(3) is merelyprocedural. There are various Sections in theAct under which assessment are completed likeSection 147, Section 158-BC etc. But in theassessment order, along with Section147/Section 158-BC, Section 143(3) is alsoreferred. Similarly to give effect to C.I.T'sorder under Section 263 or 264 or C.I.T.(A)'sorder under Section 251 or I.T.A.T. Orderunder Section 254, Section 143(3) is used as“Read with Section”. In this case, the coreSection under which the assessment iscompleted under Chapter XIV-B is underSection 158-BC(c) r.w.s. 158-BD. There hasbeen so many decisions wherein the Courtshave held that regular assessments underChapter XIV and Block assessment underChapter XIV-B are parallel and can beproceeded simultaneously and independently.In this case for the Assessment Year 1996-97and 1997-98 no regular assessment has beencompleted under Section 143(3) or 147 earlierand therefore as mentioned in my last letterdated 28.10.2003, Your case is covered underSection 151(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Yourobjection that notice is beyond jurisdictionis therefore rejected.” 23. In respect of the facts and the grounds submittedby the respective parties, this Court is of an opinion thatcertain mixed question of facts and law cannot be decided infavour of the petitioner nor depriving the department to probethe matter further and formulate an opinion with reference tothe provisions of the Act and pass orders. Whenever mixedquestion of law and facts are posed before this Court, then theHigh Court must exercise restraint from interfering with thenotice issued under Section 148. 24. However, it is made clear that in the event ofchange of an opinion by the Assessing Officer, the same cannotconstitute ground for reopening of the assessment beyond the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ period of 4 years under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.However, while deciding the case, the Assessing Officer is boundto consider the materials available on record and the reasonsrecorded for the purpose of reopening the closed assessment.Thus, this Court is of an opinion that the present case on handis one that of the mixed question of law and facts andtherefore, the Assessment Officer has to consider all theseaspects, including the objections submitted by the writpetitioner for the purpose of passing an assessment order underthe provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This Court cannotcome to the conclusion that the notice under Section 148 wasissued beyond the period of limitation with reference to Section149(1)(b) of the Act. 25. The learned counsel for the petitioner states thathe is entitled for the benefit of proviso clause to Section 147of the Act. However, the said provisions are to be consideredonly with reference to the facts and the materials available onrecord before the Assessing Officer and the said exercise cannotbe done by the High Court in a writ jurisdiction under Article226 of Constitution of India. 25. The learned counsel for the petitioner states thathe is entitled for the benefit of proviso clause to Section 147of the Act. However, the said provisions are to be consideredonly with reference to the facts and the materials available onrecord before the Assessing Officer and the said exercise cannotbe done by the High Court in a writ jurisdiction under Article226 of Constitution of India. 26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawnthe attention of this Court regarding the judgment of theHon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Driveshafts(India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer And Others [(2003) 1 SCC72], in paragraph-5, held as follows:-“5. We see no justifiable reason tointerfere with the order under challenge.However, we clarify that when a noticeunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act isissued, the proper course of action forthe noticee is to file return and if he sodesires, to seek reasons for issuingnotices. The assessing officer is bound tofurnish reasons within a reasonable time.On receipt of reasons, the noticee isentitled to file objections to issuance ofnotice and the assessing officer is boundto dispose of the same by passing aspeaking order. In the instant case, asthe reasons have been disclosed in theseproceedings, the assessing officer has todispose of the objections, if filed, bypassingaspeakingorder,beforeproceeding with the assessment in respectof the abovesaid five assessment years.” The procedures prescribed by the Supreme Court of India inG.K.N.Driveshafts (India) Limited case, are to be followed bythe Competent Authorities scrupulously. 27. The learned counsel for the respondents also hasnot disputed the proposition and reiterated that the AuthoritiesCompetent are following the principles laid down by the ApexCourt and with reference to the present writ petition on hand,the same procedure has been followed. 28. This Court has elaborately considered the Legalprinciples in the case of South Asia FM Ltd., reported in [2018]98 taxmann.com 200 (Madras). The relevant paragraphs areextracted hereunder: “95. The very concept of income tax assessment isthat the Assessee is taxed by the Department based on thereturns filed by the Assessee. Section 2 of the Actprovides “definitions”. Section 2(8) defines “assessmentincludes reassessment”. Thus the very meaning of theassessment provided under the Act includes reassessmentalso. Thus, the reassessment is not a separate conceptand it is included within the meaning of the assessmentunder Section 2(8) of the Act. Thus, an assessment andreassessment are part and parcel of the procedures andtherefore, there cannot be any doubt in respect of thepower of reassessment provided under the Act. “95. The very concept of income tax assessment isthat the Assessee is taxed by the Department based on thereturns filed by the Assessee. Section 2 of the Actprovides “definitions”. Section 2(8) defines “assessmentincludes reassessment”. Thus the very meaning of theassessment provided under the Act includes reassessmentalso. Thus, the reassessment is not a separate conceptand it is included within the meaning of the assessmentunder Section 2(8) of the Act. Thus, an assessment andreassessment are part and parcel of the procedures andtherefore, there cannot be any doubt in respect of thepower of reassessment provided under the Act. 96. The Income Tax Department may not be awareof the income of the individual Assessees. They areassessing the tax based on the returns filed by therespective Assessees. Thus, the very concept ofassessment is that the Officer who is scrutinising thereturns did not aware of the income of an individual. Forthis reason only Act provides adequate power to deal withthe cases, where there is evasion or suppression orotherwise by the Assessees. The very source of assessmentis the returns filed by the Assessee concerned. Onlyafter the filing of the returns, the Department of IncomeTax came to understand the income of the personconcerned. Thus, the reassessment may arise on severaloccasions and on several grounds. The Income TaxDepartment may receive informations from many othersources. The Income Tax Department may get some externalmaterials as well as from various other sources. It isthe process of investigation. On receipt of suchmaterials or informations from various other sources, insuch circumstances, the authorities must be in a positionto reopen the assessment and impose tax. In the absenceof any such lucid provision, enabling the Departmentreopening a case, there is a possibility of escapement of payment of tax by large number of Assessees. The verynature of the Act is to ensure that the informations andthe materials collected or received from various othersources are also dealt with by the Department of IncomeTax appropriately and with reference to the provisions ofthe Act. 97. The power of reopening of the assessment iscertainly wide in nature. If it is restricted, then thevery purpose and object of the Income Tax Act will bedefeated. The wide power provided to the authoritiescompetent to reopening of the assessment and to ensurethat all external materials and the informations receivedfrom various sources should also be dealt in accordancewith the provisions of Law. Thus, it does not mean thatthe Income Tax Authorities may reopen at any point oftime. In order to protect the Assessees a definite timelimit has been provided under the Act itself. Thus in theevent of receiving any informations or materials from anyother sources can be a ground for reopening of theassessment and the period of limitation is four years andsix years respectively and in respect of the present writpetitions, it is six years. 98. The procedure of reopening of theassessment is contemplated under Sections 148 to 153 ofthe Act. Once again looking into the spirit of Section147, it is unambiguously enumerated that “assess orreassess such income and also any other income chargeableto tax which has escaped assessment and which comes tohis notice subsequently in the course of the proceedingsunder this Section, or recompute the loss or thedepreciation allowance”. 98. The procedure of reopening of theassessment is contemplated under Sections 148 to 153 ofthe Act. Once again looking into the spirit of Section147, it is unambiguously enumerated that “assess orreassess such income and also any other income chargeableto tax which has escaped assessment and which comes tohis notice subsequently in the course of the proceedingsunder this Section, or recompute the loss or thedepreciation allowance”. 99. The language employed in Section 147(1) ofthe Act is that “which comes to his notice subsequentlyin the course of the proceedings under the Section”. Thuseven after initiation of reopening of assessmentproceedings under Section 147 of the Act, if during thecourse of the proceedings if any materials orinformations are received by the Assessing Officer thatalso can be taken into consideration for the purpose ofreassessment. It is crystal clear that the reasonsrecorded before the initiation of the reopening of theassessment alone need not be a ground for reassessment.Even after reopening of the assessment if any materialsor informations are received by the Assessing Officerthat also shall be included part and parcel of theproceedings and sufficient explanations shall be calledfor from the Assessee and accordingly a reassessment order can be passed. Thus, two circumstances arise afterthe conclusion of the assessment. Firstly, if theassessment is finalised, the reopening in respect of theescaped assessments can be made if any new materials orsuppression of materials are identified. On suchreopening of the assessment and during the course of theproceedings, if the Assessing Officer noticed any othermaterials or informations in respect of escapedassessment and the same also can be treated as part andparcel of the reassessment proceedings which is reopened. 100. On going through the said ingredients ofthe Section 147, this Court has no hesitation to concludethat the Assessing Officer has got wider power in respectof covering the escaped assessments for the purpose ofreopening the assessment. The proviso to Section 147states that “provided further that the Assessing Officermay assess or reassess such income, other than the incomeinvolving matters which are the subject matters of anyappeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to taxand has escaped assessment”. This also provides variouscircumstances enabling the Assessing Officer to assess orreassess such income other than the income involving thematters which are the subject matters of any appeal,reference or revision. The wideness of the power has beenfurther clarified in the said proviso clause. 101. Explanation 2 sub-clause (b) to Section147 also provides power to the Assessee where a return ofincome has been furnished by the Assessee but noassessment has been made and it is noticed by theAssessing Officer that the Assessee has understated theincome or has claimed excessive loss, deduction,allowance or relief in the return. 102. The circumstances are narrated whereincertain materials and informations are provided by theAssessee at the time of filing of the returns and if thesame has not been assessed by the Assessing Officerduring the relevant assessment year and if it issubsequently noticed, then also the Assessing Officer isempowered to reopen the assessment in respect of theescaped assessments. 103. On a perusal of various circumstancesincorporated under Section 147 of the Act, for reopeningof the escaped assessment, this Court is of an opinionthat it is certainly flexible and wider power has beenprovided, enabling the Assessing Officer to reopen theassessment in the interest of revenue and to ensure that the Assessees pay the correct tax with reference to theprovisions of the Act. 102. The circumstances are narrated whereincertain materials and informations are provided by theAssessee at the time of filing of the returns and if thesame has not been assessed by the Assessing Officerduring the relevant assessment year and if it issubsequently noticed, then also the Assessing Officer isempowered to reopen the assessment in respect of theescaped assessments. 103. On a perusal of various circumstancesincorporated under Section 147 of the Act, for reopeningof the escaped assessment, this Court is of an opinionthat it is certainly flexible and wider power has beenprovided, enabling the Assessing Officer to reopen theassessment in the interest of revenue and to ensure that the Assessees pay the correct tax with reference to theprovisions of the Act. 104. This Court is of a firm opinion that wherecertain doubts in respect of the reasons or otherwisehave been raised by the Assessee, such benefit of doubtshould be held in favour of the revenue and not in favourof the taxpayer. Contrariness is to be established by theAssessee, while scrutinising the materials available withthe Assessing Officer. 105. It is for the Assessee to convince theAssessing Officer in respect of all such escapedassessments, informations and materials available andsubmit the returns. This being the legal principles to befollowed, the provisions are to be interpreted to achieveits purpose and the object and therefore the wider powersprovided under Section 147 of the Act, for reopening ofthe escaped assessments can never be restricted byimposing certain conditions on the Assessing Officer.110. In the present cases on hand, the request made bythe writ petitioner had been complied with and thereasons for reopening of the escaped assessment had beencommunicated to the writ petitioner. The saidpropositions are very well recognised by the SupremeCourt of India in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India)Ltd. Thus the very provision stating that the AssessingOfficer should record the reasons does not mean that thesame should be communicated along with the notice itself.The provision is incorporated in order to ensure that theAssessing Officers act with responsibility and make surethat they are reopening the assessment only based on somereasons and the materials available on record. Suchprovisions provided to avoid the arbitrariness on thepart of the Assessing Officer cannot be taken advantageby the Assessee by contemplating the procedures that thereasons so recorded by the Assessing Officer should becommunicated to the Assessee along with the notice issuedunder Section 148(1) of the Act. Such a propositioncannot be appreciated and that is not the intention ofthe Act itself. Thus, the very arguments advanced in thisregard by the writ petitioner deserve no meritconsideration. 111. In case of M/S. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vsIncome-Tax Officer And Another [1993 203 ITR 456], it hasbeen held as follows:-"One of the purposes of Section 147, appears to usto be, to ensure that a party cannot get away by wilfullymaking a false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes tonotice, to turn around and say "you accepted my lie, nowyour hands are tied and you can do nothing". It would betravesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude." 112. On careful consideration of all thejudgments, cited supra, this Court is of an undoubtedopinion that if the Assessing Officer has reason tobelieve that income has escaped assessment, it confersjurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is however, tobe noted that the conditions stipulated in the Act mustbe fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit ofSection 147. original assessment and when that falsity comes tonotice, to turn around and say "you accepted my lie, nowyour hands are tied and you can do nothing". It would betravesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude." 112. On careful consideration of all thejudgments, cited supra, this Court is of an undoubtedopinion that if the Assessing Officer has reason tobelieve that income has escaped assessment, it confersjurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is however, tobe noted that the conditions stipulated in the Act mustbe fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit ofSection 147. 113. Considering the fact that there are somematerials on record and the informations with theDepartment of Income Tax, the reopening of the assessmentin the writ petitions with reference to Sections 147 to153 of the Act, is in accordance with law and there is noinfirmity, as such. Thus, the writ petitioner is bound torespond to the Assessing Officer for the purpose ofarriving a conclusion and for taking a decision. In theevent of passing an order of assessment or reassessment,then the writ petitioner is entitled to prefer an appealcontemplated under the provisions of the Act. Contrarily,based on the preliminary informations gathered by theAssessing Officer, the notices issued for the purpose ofreopening of the assessment would not provide a cause ofaction for filing of the present writ petitions and thisCourt has no hesitation in holding that the writpetitions are not only premature, even on merits the writpetitioner has failed to establish any acceptable reasonto grant the relief, as such, sought for”. 29. The learned counsel for the respondents furthercontented that the writ petitioner has raised several grounds,including the point of jurisdiction and with reference to thereturns filed by him during the assessment year 1996-1997 andalso for the assessment year 1997-1998. All the legal groundsand the factual circumstances submitted by the writ petitionerare to be considered by Assessing Officer, while taking a finaldecision and at the time of passing the assessment order underthe provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 30. It is brought to the notice of this Court that thewrit petitioner had already submitted an application, seekingthe reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and the reasonswere already provided to the writ petitioner. On receipt of thereasons for issuance of the reopening of assessment underSection 147 of the Act, the writ petitioner also had submitted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his objections in respect of the notice as well as the reasonscommunicated by the Department. 31. Further, it is contended that the Assessing Officerhad passed an order, rejecting the objections submitted by thewrit petitioner. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has tocomplete the process of assessment and accordingly, take adecision and pass final orders by providing further opportunityto the assessee concerned. The writ petitioner, who is anassessee, is entitled to submit all his further objections,documents or materials available with him, enabling theAssessing Officer to consider his case independently and withreference to the documents and materials produced by the writpetitioner and also the documents and materials available withthe Income Tax Department. The Assessing Officer is empowered toconsider the issue relating to jurisdiction, time limit and allother legal grounds raised by the writ petitioner at the time ofpassing the final orders. 32. Under these circumstances, this Court has nohesitation in coming to the conclusion that the writ petitioneris entitled to submit all his objections and legal grounds andmaterials, enabling the Assessing Officer to consider the sameand pass an assessment order under the provisions of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, without causing any undue delay. 32. Under these circumstances, this Court has nohesitation in coming to the conclusion that the writ petitioneris entitled to submit all his objections and legal grounds andmaterials, enabling the Assessing Officer to consider the sameand pass an assessment order under the provisions of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, without causing any undue delay. 33. With the above observations, the writ petitionsstand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are alsodismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II (2), Chennai – 34. Central Circle II (2), Chennai – 34. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II (2), New No.46 (Old No.108), Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. 3.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chennai NMI(CO)GSP(20/12/2018)