Sca/17787/2018 Of Rajesh Jayantilal Patel Thru. Poa To Jayantilal Harilal Bardana v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17787 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALASd/-andHONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORESd/-==========================================================1Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowedNoto see the judgment ?2To be referred to the Reporter or not ?No3Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copyNoof the judgment ?4Whether this case involves a substantial questionNoof law as to the interpretation of the Constitutionof India or any order made thereunder ?==========================================================RAJESH JAYANTILAL PATEL THRU. POA TO JAYANTILAL HARILALBARDANA VersusDY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(2) ==========================================================Appearance:DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Respondent(s) No. 1========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAandHONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 22/03/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1.By this writ application under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for thefollowing reliefs; “(A) Issue a writ of certiorari and/or a writ ofmandamus and/or any other writ direction or order toquash and set aside the impugned notice dated27.03.2018 under section 148 of the Income TaxAct6, 1961 annexed hereto at Annexure-E along withpreliminary order dated 8.10.2018 annexed hereto atAnnexure-’I’ for proceeding and completingreassessment proceedings. (B)Pending admission, hearing and disposal of thispetition, ad-interim relief be granted and theRespondent be ordered to restrain from enforcingcompliance of the impugned notice dated 27.03.2018under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961annexed hereto at Annexure-’E” and/or taking anyother steps in this regard including ex-parte order orimplementation of preliminary order dated 8.10.2018at Annexure-’I’ and further notices issued for purposeof reassessment. (C ) Award the cost of this petition. (D)Grant such other and further relief(s) as thisHon’ble Court deems fit.” 2.The subject matter of challenge is the legality andvalidity of the notice issued by the respondent dated27.03.2018 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) for the A.Y.2011-12. Thereasons assigned by the respondent for reopening are asunder; “1.The assessee is an individual and engaged inthe business of real estate development. A searchaction u/s.132 of the Act was carried out at thepremises of the assessee on 30.05.2012. Thereafter,the assessee filedreturn of income on 09.10.2014showing total income Rs.26,88,450/-. Further,assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act waspassed on 20.03.2015 assessing total income at Rs.26,88,450/-. 2.Now as per the information received from JtDIT(OSD), Central, Circle-2, Baroda vide his letterNo.BRD/CIT.CC-2(OSD)/Akshar/2017-18/253date29.01.2018, during the search assessmentproceedings in the Akshar Groups cases assessedwith that central circle for AY 2010-11 to A.Y.2016-17, it has been noticed that during the surveyproceedings from 22.09.2015 to 24.09.2015 at thebusiness premise of the M/s.Rekving Laboratories at328-329, Paradise Complex, Sayajiganj, Vadodaravarious loose papers/register/diaries/backup ofcomputer/digital devices etc was taken andimpounded as per annexure BF of impounding orderdated 24.09.2015 and in that Annexure-BF-1contained certain pages relating to particulars Landat Survey No.391/2 & 392 (at Gotri, Vadodara. Thefollowing seized/impounded documents pertains theassesseeShriRajeshJayantilalPatel(PAN: ) Page No.Content Page No.37, 38, 39, 61, 64, 71,These pages contain of transactions 73, 74 and 88 of Annexure-BF-in respect of a particular land located 1 IMPOUNDED from theat Survey No.391/1 and 392, Gotri, premise of having M/s.RekvinaVadodara.Laboratories at 328-329,ParadiseComplex,Sayajiaganj, Vadodara. 3.On perusal of the inquiry report, it is noticedthat as per agreement regd. No.0365 date05/05/2010 (which found & impounded as perAnnexure-BF-1 dated 23.09.2015 during the search action at the residential premise of Shri Mukesh Shahat 36, Samptro Colony, Alkapuri, Vadodara from22.09.2015 to 23,09.2015 between Shri Amit MukeshShah, Surbhit Mukesh Shah and Rajesh JayantilalPatel to sell the land. It is clearly mentioned at para-3of the agreement that Rs.1.25 crore cash has beenpaid by Shri Rajesh Jayantilal Patel, Prop. M/s.Bhoomi Developers, Dr. Yagnik Road, Rajkot to AmitMukeshbhai Shah & Surbhit Mukeshbhai Shah,Scanned copy of the agreement is reproduced asunder; On verification, it is noticed that impounded pagescontain the details of both cash and cheque. It isclearly observed from the impounded pages,impounded agreement, consensus agreement andDastavej that the cheque entries clearly match.Therefore, as per agreement between RajeshJayantilal Patel and Shri Amit Mukesh Shah & SurbhitMukesh Shah, it is clear that there was cash deal ofRs.1.25 crores between them. The assessee ShriRajesh Jayantilal Patel has paid Rs.1,00,000/- on25.08.2009 (F.Y.2009-10), Rs.10,00,000/- on07.12.2009 (F.Y.2009-10) and Rs.50,00,000/- on14.04.2010 (F.Y. 2010-11) and Rs.64,00,000/- on05.05.2010 (F.Y.2010-11). Thus the assessee haspaid total cash of Rs.1,14,00,000/- during theF.Y.2010-11 to Amit Mukeshbhai Shah and SurbhitMukeshbhai Shah. However, on verification of thebalance sheet and P&L Account submitted by theassessee for A.Y.2011-12 during the assessmentproceedings, it is noticed that the assessee has notshown these transactions in his books of accounts.Thus, it is clear that the assessee has made hugepayment of Cash of Rs.1,14,00,000/- to Shri AmitMukesh Shah, Surbhit Mukesh Shah during the yearunder consideration i.e. A.Y.2011-12 form out ofbooks, therefore the source of the same remainsunexplained. 4.Further, on perusal of the inquiry report, as perAgreement between Rajesh Jayantilal Patel and Shri Amit Mukesh Shah & Surbhit Mukesh Shah it is clearthat there was cash deal of Rs.1.25 crores betweenthem. However, the land was not sold to Shri RajeshJayantilal Patel. The final Dastavej was made by ShriAmit Mukesh Shah and Surbhit Mukesh Shah videregistered deed No.16796/2010 on 31.12.2010 forRs.6,50,00,000/- in the name of Dharmesh RameshGathani-HUF,ParagRameshGathani-HUF,Rameshbhai Himmatlal Gathani-HUF and ShriGautam Kantilal Choksi-HUF. Also Shri RajeshJayantilal Patel knew the value of the land i.e.,approx 22 crores which was also mentioned in theiragreement. Shri Rajesh Jayantilal Patel has objectedto the transfer of the land before the sub-registrar.Shri Rajesh Jayantilal patel also went into litigation inthe Vadodara Court and as per terms passed by theCourt he was compensated by the final purchase ofland and he was given Rs.5,55,00,000/- crores forleaving the claim on the land by the final purchasers(Gathani and Choksi). In lieu of the same he gave theNOC in 2012 to the transfer the land and taken backhis objection. Further, on perusal of information, it is noticed thatthe terms of payment of the consensus/ a decreepassed by the Hon’ble High Court, the Dastavej andthe impounded papers are clearly matched. Thecheque entry are clearly matching with what thesellers of land and confirming parties. Impoundedpages contain the details of both cash and cheque. Itis observed from the impounded impoundedagreement, consensus agreement and Dastavej thatthe cheque entries clearly match. For better claritycomparison of Para 4(I) of Consensus agreementbetween the parties and the impounded page no.71of Annexure-BF-1 impounded during survey at thepremises of M/s. Rekvina Pharmaceuticals arereproduced herewith. Thus, it is clear that the assessee was given hisshares in this land which was mentioned in theimpounded pages, both cash of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and Rs.5,55,00,000/- by cheque. From the impoundedmaterial it is clear that the assessee has receivedtotal cash of Rs.1,50,00,000/- during the year underconsideration i.e. A.Y. 2011-12. However, noverification of the balance sheet submitted by theassessee for A.Y. 2011-12, the assessee has notshown these transactions in his books of accounts.Thus it is clear that the assessee has received hugecash of Rs.1,50,00,000/- during the year underconsideration i.e. A.Y.2011-12 which is required to betaken under tax net during the year underconsideration. 6.In view of the above facts and seized materialavailable on the records, it is clear that the assesseehas grossly failed to disclose the above mentionedtransaction in his return of income and source ofsuch cash payment of Rs.1,14,00,000/- to AmitMukesh Shah and Surbhit Mukesh Shah also notdisclosed the profit receipt of Rs.1,50,00,000/-received in cash during the year under consideration.I have therefore reason to believe that income ofRs.2,64,00,000/- (Rs.1,14,00,000/-) has escapedassessment in this case for which the case of theassessee for A.Y.2011-12 needs to be reopenedwithin the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act. It istherefore requested that necessary approval maykindly be accorded for issuing notice u/s.148 of theI.T. Act in this case. 7.In this case, a return of income was filed for theyear under consideration and regular assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A was made on 20.03.2015. Since,4 years from the end of the relevant year has expiredin this case, the requirements to initiate proceedingsu/s.147 of the Act are reason to believe that incomefor the year under consideration has escapedassessment because of failure on the part of theassessee to disclose fully and truly all material factsnecessary for his assessment for the assessmentyear under consideration. It is pertinent to mentionhere that reason to believe that income has escaped assessment for the year under consideration havebeen recorded above para No.2 to 6. I have carefullyconsidered the assessment records containing thesubmission made by the assessee in response tovarious notices issued during the assessmentproceeding and have noted that the assessee hasnot fully and truly disclosed the following material forits assessment for the year under consideration. The assessee has grossly failed to disclose the abovementioned transactions in his return of income andsource of such cash payment of Rs.1,14,00,000/- toAmit Shah and Surbhit Shah also not disclosed theprofit/receipt of Rs.1,50,00,000/- received in cashduring the year under consideration. It is evident from the above facts that the assesseehad truly and fully disclosed material factsnecessary for his assessment for the year underconsideration thereby necessitating reopeningu/s.147 of the Act. The assessee has grossly failed to disclose the abovementioned transactions in his return of income andsource of such cash payment of Rs.1,14,00,000/- toAmit Shah and Surbhit Shah also not disclosed theprofit/receipt of Rs.1,50,00,000/- received in cashduring the year under consideration. It is evident from the above facts that the assesseehad truly and fully disclosed material factsnecessary for his assessment for the year underconsideration thereby necessitating reopeningu/s.147 of the Act. It is true that the assesee has filed a copy of annualreport and audited P&L A/c. and balance sheet alongwithreturnofincomewherevariousinformation/material were disclosed. However, therequisite full and true disclosure of all material factsnecessary for assessment has not been made asnoted above. It is pertinent to mention here thateven though the assessee has produced books ofaccounts, annual report, audited P&L A/c and balancesheet or other evidence as mentioned above, therequisite material facts as noted above in thereasons for reopening were embedded in such amanner that material evidence could not bediscovered by the AO and could have beendiscovered with due diligence, accordingly provisionof explanation 1 of Section 147 of the Act. It is important to highlight here that material factsrelevant for the assessment on the issue underconsideration were not filed during the course ofassessment proceedings and the same may be embedded in annual report, audited P&L A/c balancesheet and books of account in such a manner that ifwould require due diligence by the AO to extractthese information. For afore-stated reason, it is not acase of change of opinion by the AO. In this case, more than four years have lapsed fromthe end of assessment year under consideration.Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s.148 hasbeenobtainedseparatelyfromPrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot as perthe provision of section 151 of the Act.” 3.To the aforesaid, the writ applicant lodged itsobjections which is at page-94, Annexure-H to the paper-book. The aforesaid objections came to be disposed of bythe Assessing Officer vide order dated 08.10.2018. 4.Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the writapplicant is here before this Court with the present writapplication. 5.We have heard Mr. R.K. Patel, the learned seniorcounsel assisted by Mr. Darshan R. Patel, the learnedadvocate appearing for the writ applicant and Ms. KalpanaRaval, the learned senior standing counsel appearing forthe revenue. 6.It appears from the materials on record that a searchwas conducted at the premises of the assessee on30.05.2012 and notice under Section 143(2) was issued on11.08.2014 which proceedings culminated in an order under section 143(3) of the Act read with Section 153A ofthe Act. Such order was dated 20.03.2015. 7.Between 22.09.2015 and 24.09.2015 a surveyproceedings under Section 153A of the Act was conductedon one Rekvina Laboratories during which the informationrelating to two parcels of land surfaced which was notpreviously revealed by the assesee and which related tothe assessee. The said information was forwarded on29.01.2018 to the respondent and notice under Section148 was issued on 27.03.2018. The reasons as assignedand noted above would reveal that there was payment ofRs.1.14 crore in receipt of Rs.1.50 Crore which was notrevealed by the assessee. Based on the same, the orderhas been passed dated 08.10.2018 rejecting theobjections raised by the writ applicant. 8.It is difficult for us to say that the reopening is notbased on any tangible information. The information camein the hands of the respondent during the surveyproceedings under Section 133A of the Act. The case onhand cannot be said to be one of any fishing or rovinginquiry or change of opinion. 8.It is difficult for us to say that the reopening is notbased on any tangible information. The information camein the hands of the respondent during the surveyproceedings under Section 133A of the Act. The case onhand cannot be said to be one of any fishing or rovinginquiry or change of opinion. 9.Mr. Patel also argued that the impugned notice ofreopening deserves to be quashed also in view of theInstruction No.1/2011 issued by the board, which readsthus; “Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961-IncomeTaxAuthorities-InstructionstoSubordinateAuthorities. Instruction No.1/2011 [F.No.187/12/2010-IT(A-1)],Dated 31.01.2011. References have been received by the Board from alarge number of taxpayers, especially from mofussilareas, that the existing monetary limits forassigning cases to ITOs and Dcs/Acs/ is causinghardship to the taxpayers, as it results in transfer oftheir cases to a DC/AC who is located in a differentstation, which increases their cost of compliance.The Board had considered the matter and is of theopinion that the existing limits need to be revised toremove the above mentioned hardship; An increase in the monetary limit is also considereddesirable in view of the increase in the scale of tradeand industry since 2001, when the present incomelimits were introduced. It has therefore been decidedto increase the monetary limits as under; Metro charges for the purpose of above instructionsshall be Ahmedabad, Banglore, Chennai, Delhi,Kolkatta, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. The above instructions are issued in supersession ofthe earlier instructions and shall be applicable witheffect from 1.4.2011.” 10.Mr. R.K. Patel, the learned senior counsel appearingon behalf of the writ applicant submitted that theInstruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011 issued by theboard as referred to above mandated that the case of thewrit applicant be taken up only by an officer not belongthe rank of a Deputy Commissioner. It is the case of Mr.Patel that the instructions issued by the board are bindingupon the department and would not permit the AssessingOfficer to issue notice under Section 148 since the samewould run contrary to such instructions. Mr. Patel,therefore, submits that apart from such other grounds asraised by him, only on this short ground, the notice ofreopening deserves to be quashed. 11.Section 147 of the Act authorizes the re-opening ofany assessment of a previous year. Section 148, whichcontains the conditions for re-opening assessments,including the limitation period within which notices can beissued, by its proviso, enacts that: “Provided that no notice under this section shall beissued unless there is information with the AssessingOfficer which suggests that the income chargeable totax has escaped assessment in the case of theassessee for the relevant assessment year and theAssessing Officer has obtained prior approval of thespecified authority to issue such notice.” 12.Almost six decades back, the Supreme Court, in itsdecision in the case of Calcutta Discount CompanyLtd. vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 1961 (2) SCR241 had underscored the obligation of every assessee to make a true and full disclosure and said that: “There can be no doubt that the duty of disclosing allthe primary facts relevant to the decision of thequestion before the assessing authority lies on theassesses.” 13.The Supreme Court further held that once the duty isdischarged, it is upto the assessing officer to inquirefurther and draw the necessary inferences whilecompleting the assessment. 14.As to what can be the valid grounds for re-opening anassessment has been the subject matter of severaldecisions of the supreme court. In Income Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors. vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, 1976 (3)SCR 956, the Supreme Court held that the “reasons tobelieve” must be based on objective materials, and on areasonable view. The court held as follows: make a true and full disclosure and said that: “There can be no doubt that the duty of disclosing allthe primary facts relevant to the decision of thequestion before the assessing authority lies on theassesses.” 13.The Supreme Court further held that once the duty isdischarged, it is upto the assessing officer to inquirefurther and draw the necessary inferences whilecompleting the assessment. 14.As to what can be the valid grounds for re-opening anassessment has been the subject matter of severaldecisions of the supreme court. In Income Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors. vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, 1976 (3)SCR 956, the Supreme Court held that the “reasons tobelieve” must be based on objective materials, and on areasonable view. The court held as follows: “The grounds or reasons which lead to the formationof the belief contemplated by Section 147(a) of theAct must have a material bearing on the question ofescapement of income of the assessee fromassessment because of his failure or omission todisclose fully and truly all material facts. Once thereexist reasonable grounds for the Income-tax Officerto form the above belief, that would be sufficient toclothe him with jurisdiction to issue notice. Whetherthe grounds are adequate or not is not a matter forthe Court to investigate. The sufficiency of groundswhich induce the income-tax Officer to act is,therefore, not a justiciable issue. It is, of course, opento the assessee to contend that the Income-taxOfficer did not hold the belief that there had beensuch non-disclosure. The existence of the belief can be challenged by the assessee but not thesufficiency of reasons for the belief. The expression"reason to believe" does not mean a purelysubjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-taxOfficer. The reason must be held in good faith. Itcannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the Courtto examine whether the reasons for the formation ofthe belief have a rational connection with or arelevant bearing on the formation of the belief andare not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose ofthe section. To this limited extent, the action of theIncome-tax Officer in starting proceedings in respectof income escaping assessment is open to challengein a Court of law.” 15.In Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Ors. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors., 1993 Supp (1) SCR 28, afterreviewing the previous case law, and concluding that avalid re-opening is one, preceded by specific, reliable andrelevant information, and that the sufficiency of suchreasons is not subject to judicial review- the only caveatbeing that the court can examine the record, if suchmaterial existed, it was held that the facts disclosed in thereturn, if found later to be unfounded or false, can alwaysbe the basis of a re-opening of assessment: “appears to us to be, to ensure that a party cannotget away by willfully making a false or untruestatement at the time of original assessment andwhen that falsity comes to notice, to turn around andsay "you accepted my lie, now your hands are tiedand you can do nothing". It would be travesty ofjustice to allow the assessee that latitude.” 16.A three judge Bench, of the Supreme Court, in theCommissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 2010 (1) SCR 768, after considering itsprevious decisions, re-stated the position of law as follows: “5....where the Assessing Officer has reason tobelieve that income has escaped assessment,confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment.Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to re-open ismuch wider. However, one needs to give a schematicinterpretation to the words "reason to believe"..… Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to theAssessing Officer to re-open assessments on thebasis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot beper se reason to re-open. 6. We must also keep in mind the conceptual 16.A three judge Bench, of the Supreme Court, in theCommissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 2010 (1) SCR 768, after considering itsprevious decisions, re-stated the position of law as follows: “5....where the Assessing Officer has reason tobelieve that income has escaped assessment,confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment.Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to re-open ismuch wider. However, one needs to give a schematicinterpretation to the words "reason to believe"..… Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to theAssessing Officer to re-open assessments on thebasis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot beper se reason to re-open. 6. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power toreview; he has the power to re-assess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certainpre-condition and if the concept of "change ofopinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of theDepartment, then, in the garb of re-opening theassessment, review would take place. 7. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion"as an in-built test to check abuse of power by theAssessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989,Assessing Officer has power to re-open, providedthere is "tangible material" to come to the conclusionthat there is escapement of income fromassessment. Reasons must have a live link with theformation of the belief.” 17.It is therefore, clear that the basis for a valid re-opening of assessment should be the availability oftangible material, which can lead the AO to scrutinize thereturns for the previous assessment year in question, todetermine, whether a notice under Section 147 is called for. 18.The decision to reopen is based on tangibleinformation, which was not in the possession of the officerat the time of carrying out the assessment proceedings.The said information was revealed during the surveyproceedings under Section 133A of the Act and thereforethe reopening under Section 148 would be the propercourse of action since proceedings under Section 153Cwould be the result of search proceedings under Section132A and not survey proceedings under Section 133A.Furthermore, the reliance placed on the Instruction No.1public 2011 dated 31.01.2011 is also misplaced since thesame is with respect to the assessment proceedings andnot proceedings initiated pursuant to Section 148 of theAct. Reading such instructions to override the effect ofsection 148 read with section 151 of the Act would becontrary to the intent. Furthermore, the Madras HighCourt in the case of C. Krishnan, 2014 (52) Taxmann.com30 was pleased to hold that such instructions are not inthe nature of circulars or notifications and hence notmandatory. 19.All the aforesaid facts were not before the AssessingOfficer at the time of finalization of the searchassessment. It is a settled position of law that theadequacy of the reasons provided by the Assessing Officerfall outside the review powers and remains within thedomain of the Assessing Officer at this stage of the proceedings where only a preliminary finding undersection 147/148 has been made. It is necessary toreiterate that we are at the stage of the validity of thenotice under section 148/147. The inquiry at this stage isonly to see whether there are reasonable grounds for theIncome Tax Officer to believe and not whether theomission/failure and the escapement of income isestablished. It is necessary to keep this distinction inmind. (See Shri Krishna (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (1996) 221 ITR538/87 Taxman 315). proceedings where only a preliminary finding undersection 147/148 has been made. It is necessary toreiterate that we are at the stage of the validity of thenotice under section 148/147. The inquiry at this stage isonly to see whether there are reasonable grounds for theIncome Tax Officer to believe and not whether theomission/failure and the escapement of income isestablished. It is necessary to keep this distinction inmind. (See Shri Krishna (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (1996) 221 ITR538/87 Taxman 315). 20.Having regard to the materials on record it cannot besaid that there is a total non-application of mind on thepart of the Assessing Officer while recording the reasonsfor reopening of the assessment. It also cannot be saidthat his conclusion was merely based on the observationsand information received from the Investigation Wing. TheAssessing Officer could be said to have applied his mind tothe same. The Assessing Officer could not be said to havemerely concluded without verifying the facts that it is thecase of reopening of the assessment. We do not find meritin the vociferous submission of the learned counselappearing for the writ applicant that the contents of thereasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for thereopening of the assessment is merely an introductionabout the investigations conducted by the InvestigationWing, the modus operandi of the entry provided, thesumming up of inquiry of the Investigation Wing, theinformation received from the Investigation Wing etc. We have examined the belief of the Assessing Officer to alimited extent to look into whether there was sufficientmaterial available on record for the Assessing Officer toform a reasonable belief and whether there was a live linkexisting of the material and the income chargeable to taxthat escaped assessment. The case on hand is not onewhere it could be argued that the Assessing Officer, onabsolutely vague or unspecific information, initiated theproceedings of reassessment without taking the pains toform his own belief in respect of such materials. 21.In the result, this application fails and is herebyrejected. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) Vahid